On an unrelated note, I have to say that I'm amused at how much more articulate the OP's article made the student (Shoolbraid) appear though. In the cached copies of her blog, he calls the teacher a "c*nt" and suggests that a teacher's entire life should revolve around the students with no reciprocal burden of effort on the part of the students. Frankly, he sounds very much like the self-centered, lazy student about which she complains.
ZV
From the little I've read, Shoolbraid appears to the type of student she's complaining about in the first place.
"Whatever influenced her to say what she did is evidence as to why she simply should not teach," Shoolbraid wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "I just thought it was completely inappropriate."
What does that even mean? She was influenced to say something because of her frustration over poor students? So having poor students is evidence as to why she simply should not teach? ...? Or does he mean that teachers who get frustrated should not teach? ...?
He continued: "As far as motivated high school students, she's completely correct. High school kids don't want to do anything. ... It's a teacher's job, however, to give students the motivation to learn."
So it's a teacher's job to motivate students? I agree, in part perhaps, but it sounds like he's just another kid who refuses to take responsibility.