SHTFPreparedness may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page.
Less than two weeks ago, TheBlaze reported about aHouston high school student caught on video punching a teacher in the face apparently over a confiscated cell phone.
Well, a similar incident occurred Monday morning at a North Carolina high school, but this time the teacher fought back against the student.What are the details?
Videosent toWRAL-TVshows a substitute teacher and a juvenile student arguing over the phone in a Rocky Mount High School classroom.
Why does the rules not apply to everybody else? the student is heard asking. Thats my phone!
The substitute teacher police identified her as Xaviera Steele, the station said replies, It does apply to everybody.
Image source: YouTube screenshot
No! the student answers back. You did not keep nobody else phone!
Dont touch me, the substitute teacher says as the student appears to attempt to grab the phone from the teachers hand. The teacher then shoves the student away.
With that, the student swings at the teacher with her right arm and then its on.
The fight didnt last long; the teacher easily got the best of the student, bringing her to the floor, throwing a few punches, and pinning the screaming student while hollering for someone to get another teacher into the room.Image source: YouTube screenshotNow what?
WRAL said Rocky Mount police are looking into the fight; no charges were filed as of Monday afternoon, and no injuries were reported.
Steele has been with Nash County Public Schools for approximately a year, the station said.
NCPS policy states that if an employee is attacked by a student, the employee has the right to reasonably restrain the student and defend themselves to the point that they are free of the threat or attack, WRAL reported.
The districts phone policy states that administrators may authorize individual students to use wireless communication devices for personal purposes when there is a reasonable need for such communication, the station said, adding that the teacher was within her rights to take the phone if it was visible, or if the student was using it.Anything else?
Another substitute teacher, Bettie Atcherson, told WRAL that as the adult, you have to contain yourself and not let them take you that far. If youre kind to kids, even the toughest kids, if youre kind to them and show that you love them [and] are concerned about their well-being nine times of 10, you wont have a lot of problems.
Although the station said she added, But there are always exceptions.
Motive still unclear why a fight broke out when a substitute teacher took a students cell phone
Bonus: Root Cellar That Can Be Used as a Bunker
Do you remember the old root cellars our great-grandparents used to have? In fact, they probably built it themselves, right in their back yard.
If you want to learn how to build a backyard bunker like your grandparents had, without breaking the bank, then you need Easy Cellar.
Easy Cellar will show you:How to choose the ideal siteCost-effective building methodsHow to protect your bunker from nuclear blast and falloutHow to conceal your bunkerAffordable basic life support options
Easy Cellar will also reveal how a veteran, with only $421, built a small nuclear bunker in his backyard.Also included:America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers: Find the Closest One to Your Home56 Items to Stockpile in Your Easy Cellar
Pin Share Tweet Email
For around 700,000 teenagers on the treadmill that is the English education system, the A and T-level results that drop this week may be the most important step of all.
They matter because they open the door to higher education, and a crucial life decision based on an unwritten contract that has stood since the 1960s: the better the marks, the greater the choice of institution and course available to applicants, and in due course, the value of the degree at the end of it.
A quarter of a century after Tony Blair set a target of 50% of school-leavers going to university, however, the fundamentals of that deal have been transformed.
Today’s prospective undergraduates face rising costs of tuition and debt, new labour market dynamics, and the uncertainties of the looming AI revolution.
Together, they pose a different question: Is going to university still worth it?
Image: Students at Plantsbrook School in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, look at their A-level results in 2024. File pic: PA
Huge financial costs
Of course, the value of the university experience and the degree that comes with it cannot be measured by finances alone, but the costs are unignorable.
For today’s students, the universal free tuition and student grants enjoyed by their parents’ generation have been replaced by annual fees that increase to £9,500 this year.
Living costs meanwhile will run to at least £61,000 over three years, according to new research.
Together, they will leave graduates saddled with average debts of £53,000, which, under new arrangements, they repay via a “graduate tax” of 9% on their earnings above £25,000 for up to 40 years.
A squeezed salary gap
As well as rising fees and costs of finance, graduates will enter a labour market in which the financial benefits of a degree are less immediately obvious.
Graduates do still enjoy a premium on starting salaries, but it may be shrinking thanks to advances in the minimum wage.
The Institute of Student Employers says the average graduate starting salary was £32,000 last year, though there is a wide variation depending on career.
Image: File pic: PA
With the minimum wage rising 6% to more than £26,000 this April, however, the gap to non-degree earners may have reduced.
A reduction in earning power may be compounded by the phenomenon of wage compression, which sees employers having less room to increase salaries across the pay scale because the lowest, compulsory minimum level has risen fast.
Taken over a career, however, the graduate premium remains unarguable.
Government data shows a median salary for all graduates aged 16-64 in 2024 of £42,000 and £47,000 for post-graduates, compared to £30,500 for non-graduates.
Graduates are also more likely to be in employment and in highly skilled jobs.
There is also little sign of buyer’s remorse.
A University of Bristol survey of more than 2,000 graduates this year found that, given a second chance, almost half would do the same course at the same institution.
And while a quarter would change course or university, only 3% said they would have skipped higher education.
Image: Students receive their A-level results at Ark Globe Academy in London last year. File pic: PA
No surprise then that industry body Universities UK believes the answer to the question is an unequivocal “yes”, even if the future of graduate employment remains unclear.
“This is a decision every individual needs to take for themselves; it is not necessarily the right decision for everybody. More than half the 18-year-old population doesn’t progress to university,” says chief executive Vivienne Stern.
“But if you look at it from a purely statistical point of view, there is absolutely no question that the majority who go to university benefit not only in terms of earnings.”
‘Roll with the punches’
She is confident that graduates will continue to enjoy the benefits of an extended education even if the future of work is profoundly uncertain.
“I think now more than ever you need to have the resilience that you acquire from studying at degree level to roll with the punches.
“If the labour market changes under you, you might need to reinvent yourself several times during your career in order to be able to ride out changes that are difficult to predict. That resilience will hold its value.”
The greatest change is likely to come from AI, the emerging technology whose potential to eat entry-level white collar jobs may be fulfilled even faster than predicted.
The recruitment industry is already reporting a decline in graduate-level posts.
Image: A maths exam in progress at Pittville High School, Cheltenham.
File pic: PA
Anecdotally, companies are already banking cuts to legal, professional, and marketing spend because an AI can produce the basic output almost instantly, and for free.
That might suggest a premium returning to non-graduate jobs that remain beyond the bots. An AI might be able to pull together client research or write an ad, but as yet, it can’t change a washer or a catheter.
It does not, however, mean the degree is dead, or that university is worthless, though the sector will remain under scrutiny for the quality and type of courses that are offered.
The government is in the process of developing a new skills agenda with higher education at its heart, but second-guessing what the economy will require in a year, never mind 10, has seldom been harder.
Universities will be crucial to producing the skilled workers the UK needs to thrive, from life sciences to technology, but reducing students to economic units optimised by “high value” courses ignores the unquantifiable social, personal, and professional benefits going to university can bring.
In a time when culture wars are played out on campus, it is also fashionable to dismiss attendance at all but the elite institutions on proven professional courses as a waste of time and money. (A personal recent favourite came from a columnist with an Oxford degree in PPE and a career as an economics lecturer.)
The reality of university today means that no student can afford to ignore a cost-benefit analysis of their decision, but there is far more to the experience than the job you end up with. Even AI agrees.
Ask ChatGPT if university is still worth it, and it will tell you: “That depends on what you mean by worth – financially, personally, professionally – because each angle tells a different story.”
It says human rights in the UK “worsened” in 2024, with “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression”, as well as “crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism” since the 7 October Hamas attack against Israel.
On free speech, while “generally provided” for, the report cites “specific areas of concern” around limits on “political speech deemed ‘hateful’ or ‘offensive'”.
Sir Keir Starmer has previously defended the UK’s record on free speech after concerns were raised by Mr Vance.
In response to the report, a UK government spokesperson said: “Free speech is vital for democracy around the world including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.”
Image: Keir Starmer and JD Vance have clashed in the past over free speech in the UK. Pics: PA
The US report highlights Britain’s public space protection orders, which allow councils to restrict certain activities in some public places to prevent antisocial behaviour.
It also references “safe access zones” around abortion clinics, which the Home Office says are designed to protect women from harassment or distress.
They have been criticised by Mr Vance before, notably back in February during a headline-grabbing speech at the Munich Security Conference.
Ministers have said the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and repeatedly gone so far as to suggest people who are opposed to it are on the side of predators.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:23
Why do people want to repeal the Online Safety Act?
The report comes months after Sir Keir bit back at Mr Vance during a summit at the White House, cutting in when Donald Trump’s VP claimed there are “infringements on free speech” in the UK.
“We’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that,” the PM said.
But Mr Vance again raised concerns during a meeting with Foreign Secretary David Lammy at his country estate in Kent last week, saying he didn’t want the UK to go down a “very dark path” of losing free speech.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Trump administration itself has been accused of trying to curtail free speech and stifle criticism, most notably by targeting universities – Harvard chief among them.
The police’s use of facial recognition technology is to be significantly expanded in an attempt to catch more offenders, ministers have announced.
Under the plans, 10 live facial recognition (LFR) vans will be used by seven forces across England to help identify “sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes”, according to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
The tech, which has been trialled in London and south Wales, will be subject to strict rules, the Home Office said, but human rights groups have warned it is “dangerous and discriminatory”.
Amnesty International UK said the plans should be “immediately scrapped”, with facial recognition proven to be “discriminatory against communities of colour”.
“It has been known to lead to misidentification and the risk of wrongful arrest,” said Alba Kapoor, the charity’s racial justice lead, “and it’s also known to be less accurate in scanning the faces of people of colour.”
The Home Office said the LFR vans will only be deployed when there is “specific intelligence”, and will be operated by trained officers who will check every match made by the cameras.
The vehicles will also only be used against bespoke watch lists, compiled for each use under guidelines set by the College of Policing.
The vans will be operated by police forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey and Sussex (jointly), and Thames Valley and Hampshire (jointly).
Image: The 10 vans set to be deployed to police forces across England.
Pic: Home Office
‘The most serious offenders’
Ms Cooper has said ministers are focused on making sure “there are proper safeguards in place”.
As part of the plans, the home secretary has announced she will be launching a consultation on how and when the cameras should be used, and with what safeguards, which the government will use to draw up a new legal framework for the use of the cameras.
Ms Cooper said the tech had been used in London and South Wales “in a targeted way”, and helped catch “the most serious offenders, including people wanted for violent assaults or for sex offences”.
According to the Metropolitan Police, the tech has led to 580 arrests for offences such as rape, domestic crime and knife crime in the space of 12 months.
The government has pointed to independent testing by the National Physical Laboratory, which it said found the tech was “accurate” and showed “no bias for ethnicity, age, or gender”.
Liberty has welcomed the government’s decision to create a statutory framework for using facial recognition, but said that should be in place before the tech is rolled out.
“There’s no reasonable excuse to be putting even more cameras on our streets before the public have had their say and legislation is brought in to protect all of us,” said a statement.
The civil liberties charity cited how more than 1.6 million people have had their faces scanned in South Wales, mostly on football match days in Cardiff city centre.
But Lindsey Chiswick, from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), has said the expansion “is an excellent opportunity for policing”, and will help officers locate suspects “quickly and accurately”.