My Teacher Called Me A Failure Until The Janitor Said Something That Made Her Blush.

Considering the Exit

Tuesday, I sat in the cafeteria picking at my food and seriously considered just dropping AP Chemistry entirely. The stress was becoming too much between running the app, dealing with compliance issues, fighting for fair grades, and now defending myself against formal complaints.

Something had to give. Maybe it made more sense to take regular chemistry instead and free up mental energy for everything else.

I could still get into a good college with regular chemistry on my transcript. I pulled up the course change form on my phone and started filling it out.

Mr. Castillo found me in the chemistry lab after lunch, where I’d gone to think. He asked what I was doing, and I showed him the partially completed course change form.

He sat down on one of the lab stools and looked at me seriously.

“Dropping now would feel like letting Mrs. Duran win, like proving she was right that you didn’t belong in advanced classes.”

He pointed out that colleges would see a gap in my transcript where I dropped from AP to regular mid-year, and they’d wonder why. More importantly, he said I’d already done the hard work of standing up for myself through proper channels.

I’d filed complaints, completed demonstration assessments, and documented everything carefully. Quitting before seeing the results would waste all that effort.

He reminded me that I was smart enough to handle the material, and I’d proven that through the assessments. The only question was whether I had the determination to see it through.

His words hit me harder than I expected. I closed the course change form without submitting it and told him I’d stick it out.

He smiled and said he knew I would.

The Ethics Panel

Wednesday afternoon, I walked into the student ethics panel hearing feeling like I was on trial. Five students and two teachers sat behind a long table in the library conference room.

They’d been reviewing whether my tutoring app constituted academic dishonesty or gave users an unfair advantage. I sat down in the chair facing them, and the panel chair explained they’d reviewed my app and wanted to hear my perspective.

I started by explaining that the app was basically the same as hiring a private tutor, just more affordable and accessible. Students who could pay for expensive test prep services or private tutors had been getting extra help forever; my app just made that same kind of support available to more people.

One panel member asked how I prevented the app from being used to cheat on homework or share test answers. I pulled up the app on my laptop and showed them the safeguards I’d built.

Tutors couldn’t access students’ actual assignments; the platform was designed for explanation and teaching, not for providing answers. All sessions were logged, and I could review them if teachers reported concerns about specific users.

Another panel member asked about the peer tutoring model and whether students were qualified to teach each other. I explained the matching algorithm that connected students based on learning styles and the rating system that helped identify effective tutors.

A teacher on the panel asked about my revenue model and whether I was profiting from academic support that should be free. I admitted I charged for the service but pointed out that my prices were way lower than traditional tutoring and I needed to cover server costs and pay the peer tutors.

The hearing lasted an hour with detailed questions about every aspect of how the app worked. Walking out, I felt like I’d articulated my position clearly, but I had no idea which way the panel would decide.

Passing the Audit

Thursday morning, the security auditors showed up as scheduled: two people with laptops who spent the entire day reviewing my code line by line. They accessed my servers remotely and examined how I stored user data.

They tested my authentication system and tried to find vulnerabilities. I sat in class checking my phone between periods, seeing notifications about their access requests and test activities.

After school, I logged in to see their preliminary findings. They’d identified several areas where my logging could be stronger.

My password encryption was good, but they recommended additional salting. Some of my API endpoints didn’t have proper rate limiting, which could allow denial of service attacks.

My session management needed improvement. Nothing was critically dangerous, but there were definitely weak spots that could be exploited by someone determined enough.

I spent Thursday evening implementing their recommended fixes: adding better logging to track who accessed what data and when, implementing rate limiting on all my API endpoints, and strengthening my session token generation.

Friday after school, I continued working on the security improvements the auditors had recommended, like using a key management service instead of storing encryption keys directly in my code. I spent three hours migrating to a proper key management system, learning way more about cryptography than I ever expected to know.

By Friday night, I’d addressed every item on their preliminary findings list. I sent them an email with a detailed summary of what I’d fixed and how.

They responded, saying they were impressed with how quickly I’d implemented their recommendations and that their final report would reflect that. They said they’d seen professional development teams take weeks to address similar findings.

The Lab Practical

The following Monday, I showed up for the third and final part of my demonstration assessment. This was the lab practical where I had to solve equilibrium problems using Mrs. Duran’s methods while explaining my reasoning out loud.

Joyce Hendricks sat in the back of the classroom with her notebook. Mrs. Duran stood at the front looking tense.

She handed me a worksheet with five equilibrium problems and pointed to the lab bench where I’d be working. I started with the first problem, writing out every step using exactly the format she’d demonstrated in class.

I explained each step as I worked, describing why I was applying Le Chatelier’s principle and how I was calculating the equilibrium constant. Mrs. Duran watched closely but didn’t interrupt.

I moved through the second and third problems, showing all my work in her preferred notation and labeling everything precisely using her exact terminology.

Joyce took notes, but her expression stayed neutral. The fourth problem was trickier, involving a multi-step equilibrium, but I worked through it methodically and explained how I was tracking each species through the reaction sequence.

The fifth problem required using an ICE table, which I set up exactly as Mrs. Duran had taught. I filled in the initial concentrations, showed the changes, and calculated the equilibrium values.

I finished after about 40 minutes and looked up. Mrs. Duran reviewed my work without saying anything, just marking things on her copy of the worksheet.

Joyce asked me a few clarifying questions about my reasoning for problem four, and I answered confidently. Walking out, I felt like I’d finally cleared the bar Mrs. Duran had set.

Whether she wanted to admit it or not, I’d proven I could adapt to her system when required, even if it wasn’t my natural approach.