It’s 7:30 in the morning. You are a summer school teacher. You show up at your classroom door to find two parents waiting for you. They want to know why their son is only getting a 40% in your class. You sit down with them an explain that, basically, he is a delinquent. The parents accept the explanation, say that they will talk to him, and ask you to call them if their son falls asleep in class again. A short while later you are able to start your day. How do you react to that situation?
If you are Kim Herndon, you come home and whine to, I’d guess, anyone who would listen about how horribly rude the parents were. Then, when someone disagrees with you, you post to your blog hoping that one of your fanboys will back you up.
That’s fine, of course, that’s what the internet is for. But the internet is also for rebuttal.
So, once you’ve read the above hypo and you’ve read Kim’s take on it1, read my opinion (which follows)… and then cast your vote in the poll (at the bottom).
Here are the facts: the parents arrived before school started to speak with their son’s teacher about his performance. They were not belligerent or demanding. They accepted the teacher’s appraisal, and went on their way. The teacher did not ask them to come back another time or indicate in any way that they were being a burden. Kim thinks that the mere act of showing up was rude. In her words, “Would you want someone to just walk in on you at your job, expecting a sit-down meeting at their convenience?”
Obviously not. But we have no evidence that that’s what happened. Tommy falls into the same trap in her comments, saying “and it is rude for parents to assume that their child’s particular situation warrants immediately distracting a teacher from her current work.” Another statement which we have no evidence to support.
So where is the disconnect? The issue is that Kim (et al) assumes, by their mere presence, that they were expecting or demanding something of her. The fallacy of this assumption is easy to demonstrate. I’ll re-post another hypothetical situation from Kim’s comments:
If a kid’s Mother realizes one morning, on her way to work, that she needs to drop off a form at the school and she decides, while she’s there, to see if the teacher is around and available to talk about some issue she remembered… well… that’s rude because she didn’t schedule a time with the oh-so-busy teacher.
Now, by Kim’s logic, the mother is rude to stop by, even if it is just on the off chance that the teacher would have a few minutes to spare. Even if the parent is perfectly willing to accept “I’m sorry, I don’t have time to meet with you right now.” As a society, it would be wise of us to adopt this line of thinking — that showing up at a school unannounced for any reason and under any circumstance is rude — only if we learn that teachers as a whole have a very difficult time asserting themsevles. That they are, generally, unable to say “I’m sorry, I’d love to discuss this with you, but I am very busy right now.”
But, even then, the “rude” part would still not be simply showing up, it would be willingly taking advantage of the teacher’s good will and passiveness.
So my official position on these parents is that, absent any evidence to suggest that they were demanding or expecting Kim to cater to them by showing up, we can’t assume that the parents were being rude.
If they were “expecting” Kim to go out of her way for them with no notice, that expectation is rude. If they were merely hoping she would, or wanted her to, but did not expect it… there was nothing rude about it.
Now is the part where you vote:
For some reason, the poll was screwing up the viewing of the page in firefox. Go here if you want to see the poll.
Personally, I lodged my vote for “Maybe”, because that’s the correct answer. But you’re entitled to your opinion.
Which is horribly misleading, btw
June 28th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Parents (who recognize that their child is a delinquent - key detail) come to the school better understand what’s going on with their child and that’s considered rude? Eh? I must be missing something. I would think that the teacher would go out of his/her way to try to accomodate parents like this. Teachers are supposed to act in the best interest of the child (or so I would think). The parents show up asking for information/opinion, and that’s rude? This should have been the kind of moment that makes teaching “problem” children “worth it”.
Honestly? I think the teacher is in the wrong line of work.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Just so you know, I voted a “maybe” as well. My main reason for responding to your post on her blog as I did was that your tone towards her was a bit harsh considering that she was most likely speaking from a place of stress and was looking for some form of consoling, not necessarily agreement.
Again, I don’t believe that a parent is necessarily wrong for approaching a teacher unannounced for more information about a student’s progress — and I agree with Kevin that teachers should encourage parental involvement — but the tone does matter, and knowing Kim, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. Cut Kim some slack — this is her first teaching job, and she’s probably got a ways to go before she handles parental inquiries in the best manner possible.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Well, there are two things going on here.
First, I don’t mollycoddle my friends. When I think they are being unreasonable, I tell them so. Pretendling like something is okay just to console someone is not what I do. This is no secret to Kim. She knows full-well that if a friend of mine is looking for a yes-man to nod compassionately while they make a mountain out of a molehill, I’m not the guy to talk to.
Second, you have a situation where Kim chose to call me out. It wasn’t necessary for the story, really, and on top of that she took a 40 minute IM conversation during which time I made every point that I’ve since made in blog posts and comments (and then some) and distilled them down to a two line soundbite which was my response to her effectively covering her ears and saying “LA LA LA LA… I can’t hear you!” via IM. I don’t object to having my IMs reproduced online (most of the time) but when they’re done in such a deceptive way, I take issue.
In this case, I took issue because she was misrepresenting not only the facts of the story, but my side of our discussion. Hence the tone of the comment. (To be clear: I don’t know that she did this intentionally, and it really doesn’t make any difference)
I chose to focus on the issue at hand so as to avoid de-railing the comments with a discussion about how faithfully she represented my argument.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
With regards to your first point, that’s a difference in our approaches, and I think each has its merits and demerits (no school pun intended). I can’t really say how I would have responded, because I didn’t have the conversation to begin with. The quote shown on Kim’s blog made it easier for me to jump to her defense without considering that the rest of the conversation might provide a clearer context. My apologies.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
While it is commendable that the kid’s parents took the time to stop by and take an interest in his grades (which they probably should have done more of before it came to the point where summer school was necessary), their unexpected presence was an imposition on her time. Yes, teachers do have a duty to meet with parents, and Kim was right for not sending them away; however, there are also established procedures for setting up a meeting, of which randomly showing up at the class is not one. Frankly, it makes me wonder if the office staff was doing their job. Did the parents sign in like they are required to do? It’s obvious that they didn’t have an appointment. You’re splitting hairs, as lawyers and wannabes so often do. The issue isn’t whether or not they expected Kim to cater to them, the issue is the cold call visit. Perhaps your the kind of person that doesn’t mind having your time imposed upon. Perhaps it will be perfectly fine for a client to be waiting on you at your law office when you show up, or at your car when you are leaving for the the day (especially if you just lost a case for them).
And, really, how different are you from Kim, coming “home” to your blog, whining about her post? You even go to the extent of creating a web poll. Aren’t you looking for your “fanboys” to back you up?
June 29th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Line by line for you, Matt, because I’m bored.
their unexpected presence was an imposition on her time.
If so, it’s because she allowed it to be, not because they showed up.
there are also established procedures for setting up a meeting
Established by whom? When? Published where? Made aware to these specific parents in what way?
It’s clear that they didn’t set up a meeting. They stopped by to see if Kim had time to meet with them. She did. How horrible of them. Would we still be having this conversation if Kim told them she didn’t have time, they apologized for interrupting and went along their merry way? I doubt it.
You’re splitting hairs, as lawyers and wannabes so often do.
As opposed to painting with a broad brush, making unsupported assumptions and arguing from emotion… as the ignorant and self-righteous so often do.
I wonder if you’d call it splitting hairs if someone accused you of expecting something that you really only wanted. Somehow I doubt it.
The issue isn’t whether or not they expected Kim to cater to them, the issue is the cold call visit.
Because you say so? Or do you have some sort of support for that assertion? Because I’m pretty sure that is the issue. I cannot think of a single thing, and I have spent the last several minutes trying very hard, that it is rude to “want”. On the other hand, when trying to find things that it is rude to “expect”, a nearly limitless number spring to mind.
Perhaps your the kind of person that doesn’t mind having your time imposed upon. Perhaps it will be perfectly fine for a client to be waiting on you at your law office when you show up, …
I’m the kind of person who would ask someone if they could come back another time if the imposition was so great that I could not spare them a few minutes of my time. And I would be more than happy for a client to be sitting at my office waiting for me to arrive for the day… mainly because service to that client [would be] my job. And I don’t mind doing my job.
…at your car when you are leaving for the the day (especially if you just lost a case for them).
Oh come on. Surely you’re more intelligent than his. If you can’t understand the difference between going to someone’s place of business and waiting for them at their car, that explains perfectly well why you’re having such trouble following “hair splitting”.
I’m also pretty sure that despite her dislike for conflict, Kim would be better served if you just kept your mouth shut instead of trying to defend her.
I want to assure my readers that Kim would not say something this ridiculous.
Oh, and also? I don’t plan on losing any cases.
And, really, how different are you from Kim, coming “home” to your blog, whining about her post? You even go to the extent of creating a web poll. Aren’t you looking for your “fanboys” to back you up?
Thanks for playing, come back soon.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Matt makes some interesting points.
I like the term “cold call” for this event. Is a cold call rude? Not necessarily. I think it better to call it insensitive — not in the emotional “how dare you!” sense, but in the “you’re not taking everything into consideration” sense. A teacher usually doesn’t have the expectation of being approached in such an abrupt manner and may not be prepared to give an answer that would be more appropriate to her timetable. If the teacher chooses to focus on the parent(s) rather than preparing for the day’s classes, it isn’t the parent’s fault, but the parent did contribute to the environment that led to the choice by approaching the teacher at such an unexpected time.
With regards to protocol, there usually is some established procedure for a parent visiting a school that involves checking in at an office. In an ideal situation, the office personnel would page the teacher over the intercom, and the teacher could choose either to have the parent(s) come to the classroom or to see the parent(s) in the office — or even to communicate a better time for the parent(s) to stop by. We have no indication whether these parents came through the office, if the office was even open / manned, or if there is such a protocol in place for Kim’s school. IF the parents ignored some protocol that was in place, then that would put more blame on them, but again, it’s speculation that we can neither confirm nor deny.
The bottom line is that this event happened, Kim was unhappy after the fact, and she chose to refer to said event as the source of her unhappiness. In actuality, this may have been one event in a series that has kept her in a stressed state, and her placing the blame on the parents was more of an emotional response to stress rather than an actual logic-based decision. Since then, we’ve seen the situation escalate to a couple of blog entries (with comments) that have shifted the focus from Kim’s actions to Pete’s reasoning and response. While I did jump into the discussion in “fanboy” mode, I’ve enjoyed considering the different facets to parent-teacher interactions.