A new report being released today apparently finds that 60% of students in Texas were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grades. As the NY Times reports, that's a huge number (though I don't quite understand why only 31% were suspended out of school -- apparently half of the kids received in-school suspensions instead (supposedly that's less severe, but does that seem like a worse punishment to anybody else?)). Everyone interviewed in the article seems outraged at the number, and rightly so -- there's simply no way that 60% of students really cause serious problems in schools.
That said, simply reducing such punishments is no answer either. My school, for example, was under a good deal of pressure to reduce suspensions (word on the street was that our first principal resigned under pressure largely because the rate was deemed too high). The result was that a few students got away with ludicrous behaviors, significantly reducing what the vast majority of students learned while simultaneously frustrating teachers in a building that already had a serious attrition problem.
So, I empathize with all those who are outraged by the sky-high numbers in this report. We should certainly try to spend less time punishing, and more time teaching, our students. But I also empathize with all those students and teachers whose learning and teaching are unnecessarily inhibited on a daily basis by a few students acting out. I completely agree that we need to reduce the number of punishments meted out, but that can't be the only goal -- we simply cannot sacrifice student learning in the pursuit of less distressing numbers.
Showing posts with label discipline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discipline. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-If nothing else, I like the title of this LA Times story: "Controlling a classroom isn't as easy as ABC" (hat tip: Flypaper). Speaking from my experiences both teaching and working with and talking to other beginning teachers, there are an awful lot of little things about classroom management that seem obvious to veteran teachers and aren't to newbies.
-Jay Mathews says that the achievement gap is "useless as a measure of school improvement". I sort of see his point that a school (or school system) could get worse while, at the same time, the achievement gap shrinks. But that's only a reason to not make the achievement gap the only measure we examine.
-A new study finds that teachers in charter schools are 76% more likely two switch schools or leave the profession at the end of any given year, and that most of the attrition and turnover is due to dissatisfaction with their school. My initial reaction is that this is probably largely b/c charter schools tend to hire different teachers -- namely younger, more idealistic teachers who may be less intent on making a career of teaching and at the same time are more willing to explore different schools and careers instead of committing to one.
-Diane Ravitch compares the support of charter schools by social elites to "origins of free schooling in certain northeastern cities in the early 19th Century, when wealthy men decided that it was their civic duty to help civilize the children of the poor". I don't know if the motives of many donors are quite so paternalistic, but I do share her concern that the reliance of charter schools on this funding means that "our society will increasingly rely on the good will of wealthy patrons to educate children of color".
-Jay Mathews says that the achievement gap is "useless as a measure of school improvement". I sort of see his point that a school (or school system) could get worse while, at the same time, the achievement gap shrinks. But that's only a reason to not make the achievement gap the only measure we examine.
-A new study finds that teachers in charter schools are 76% more likely two switch schools or leave the profession at the end of any given year, and that most of the attrition and turnover is due to dissatisfaction with their school. My initial reaction is that this is probably largely b/c charter schools tend to hire different teachers -- namely younger, more idealistic teachers who may be less intent on making a career of teaching and at the same time are more willing to explore different schools and careers instead of committing to one.
-Diane Ravitch compares the support of charter schools by social elites to "origins of free schooling in certain northeastern cities in the early 19th Century, when wealthy men decided that it was their civic duty to help civilize the children of the poor". I don't know if the motives of many donors are quite so paternalistic, but I do share her concern that the reliance of charter schools on this funding means that "our society will increasingly rely on the good will of wealthy patrons to educate children of color".
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Quote of the Day
"I often wonder how many potentially good teachers would be happy to teach the youth of tomorrow if discipline were taken entirely out of their hands. My advice for improving public education is to hire a 'bouncer' for every classroom. I’d go back tomorrow."
-former teacher Caelin Graber, writing in response to Susan Engel's op-ed on teacher preparation
I don't know about the "bouncer" idea, but I will tell you that discipline was, far and away, the biggest problem in my school . . . and the main reason I left teaching.
-former teacher Caelin Graber, writing in response to Susan Engel's op-ed on teacher preparation
I don't know about the "bouncer" idea, but I will tell you that discipline was, far and away, the biggest problem in my school . . . and the main reason I left teaching.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-Very clever piece in the Miller-McCune magazine (hat tip: idea of the day blog) about evaluating schools based on how the boys' bathrooms look, along with other qualitative measures. The author says he relies mostly on test scores to judge schools, but it seems to me that he can learn more about them from the measures he mentions. In addition to looking at bathrooms, he looks for these indicators (and a number of others):
• Classroom windows and/or the vertical slits on school doors are covered over with dark construction paper. Trust me, it's seldom for purely decorative purposes.
• Students continually ask, "Will this be on the test?" (The unstated premise: "If not, we'll just ignore it.")
• Adults frequently YELL belittling language. Or: Like a restaurant with bad acoustics, the school's overall sound quality —whether too loud or too quiet — is just downright unpalatable.
• Administrators are unwilling to let credentialed visitors roam. Instead, they insist on "giving a tour" of the usual, safe suspects.
My school would have failed all of these miserably. We actually kept the bathrooms locked -- students had to ask a teacher for a key to get access (or wait by the door for another kid to come out). And only a handful of teachers had keys. Even so, they were a disaster. The janitor was constantly pulling all sorts of things out of the toilets.
-I noticed this piece in the NY Times Science section last week on how the brain deals with stress. There's new research that finds that "chronically stressed rats lost their elastic rat cunning and instead fell back on familiar routines and rote responses, like compulsively pressing a bar for food pellets they had no intention of eating." There's already research showing that living in poverty creates stress that has multiple negative implications for people. Maybe this is another reason that kids from low SES background perform so poorly in school. "Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist who studies stress at Stanford University School of Medicine, said, 'This is a great model for understanding why we end up in a rut, and then dig ourselves deeper and deeper into that rut.'"
-Among other things that the Race to the top funds don't take into account are what types of punishments states allow. In case you weren't aware, 20 states still allow corporal punishment. I have to say that I didn't find the idea of corporal punishment nearly as distasteful while I was teaching as I did before I started, but my sense is that it's neither appropriate nor conducive to a good school environment. Though, of course, an out of control school isn't helping anybody either.
• Classroom windows and/or the vertical slits on school doors are covered over with dark construction paper. Trust me, it's seldom for purely decorative purposes.
• Students continually ask, "Will this be on the test?" (The unstated premise: "If not, we'll just ignore it.")
• Adults frequently YELL belittling language. Or: Like a restaurant with bad acoustics, the school's overall sound quality —whether too loud or too quiet — is just downright unpalatable.
• Administrators are unwilling to let credentialed visitors roam. Instead, they insist on "giving a tour" of the usual, safe suspects.
My school would have failed all of these miserably. We actually kept the bathrooms locked -- students had to ask a teacher for a key to get access (or wait by the door for another kid to come out). And only a handful of teachers had keys. Even so, they were a disaster. The janitor was constantly pulling all sorts of things out of the toilets.
-I noticed this piece in the NY Times Science section last week on how the brain deals with stress. There's new research that finds that "chronically stressed rats lost their elastic rat cunning and instead fell back on familiar routines and rote responses, like compulsively pressing a bar for food pellets they had no intention of eating." There's already research showing that living in poverty creates stress that has multiple negative implications for people. Maybe this is another reason that kids from low SES background perform so poorly in school. "Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist who studies stress at Stanford University School of Medicine, said, 'This is a great model for understanding why we end up in a rut, and then dig ourselves deeper and deeper into that rut.'"
-Among other things that the Race to the top funds don't take into account are what types of punishments states allow. In case you weren't aware, 20 states still allow corporal punishment. I have to say that I didn't find the idea of corporal punishment nearly as distasteful while I was teaching as I did before I started, but my sense is that it's neither appropriate nor conducive to a good school environment. Though, of course, an out of control school isn't helping anybody either.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Letter A Principal Should Never Receive from a Teacher
After regaling one of my roommates with horror stories from teaching in the Bronx for the last half hour I decided to dig into my archives. The following is, verbatim (other than changing names that are italicized), a letter that I sent my principal during my second year of teaching. Why am I posting this now? Two reasons:
1.) To illustrate the discipline problems that too many teachers in urban schools encounter.
2.) To provide a template for teachers who find themselves in similar situations. If you find yourself in this situation, don't wait until February to do this.
I can see a strong argument that the letter shows my incompetence in the classroom as much as anything else. I will point out that I have never claimed to have been the best teacher in the world and will be the first to admit that I could've done many, many things differently when I taught. But I think the more salient point is that this type of behavior should never be tolerated in our schools. Blaming the problem on a wide-eyed young teacher will do nothing to solve it.
Before reading the text of the letter you should know that the behavior described within is something that was a daily occurrence at my school. This letter was not particularly unusual, I'd sent others like it to administrators in my school before. The only real difference between this letter and others was my level of frustration. NYC publishes a rather comprehensive discipline code but there was little attempt to follow it in my school (and I know mine wasn't/isn't the only one). I decided to cite the specific infractions committed by the student and the interventions mandated by the city rules in a vain attempt at helping out the other kids in my class who were suffering because of this child. Anyway, without further ado, here's the letter in full (with names changed, of course):
February 28, 2006
Oh, and in case you were wondering: "Johnny" was not suspended for any of the behaviors described in this letter . . . though he was suspended about a week or two later when he had a breakdown in the hallway and threatened to kill the Asst. Principal.
1.) To illustrate the discipline problems that too many teachers in urban schools encounter.
2.) To provide a template for teachers who find themselves in similar situations. If you find yourself in this situation, don't wait until February to do this.
I can see a strong argument that the letter shows my incompetence in the classroom as much as anything else. I will point out that I have never claimed to have been the best teacher in the world and will be the first to admit that I could've done many, many things differently when I taught. But I think the more salient point is that this type of behavior should never be tolerated in our schools. Blaming the problem on a wide-eyed young teacher will do nothing to solve it.
Before reading the text of the letter you should know that the behavior described within is something that was a daily occurrence at my school. This letter was not particularly unusual, I'd sent others like it to administrators in my school before. The only real difference between this letter and others was my level of frustration. NYC publishes a rather comprehensive discipline code but there was little attempt to follow it in my school (and I know mine wasn't/isn't the only one). I decided to cite the specific infractions committed by the student and the interventions mandated by the city rules in a vain attempt at helping out the other kids in my class who were suffering because of this child. Anyway, without further ado, here's the letter in full (with names changed, of course):
February 28, 2006
Principal,
I am requesting that Johnny be removed from Class 6A5 and suspended. The class is unable to function while he is present in the room. We have attempted countless types of interventions and none have worked. He presents a physical danger to every person present in the room and regularly harasses (both sexually and physically) other students.
I have written countless anecdotals detailing Johnny’s detrimental behavior and his major infractions of the discipline code. A clear pattern of severely disruptive and dangerous behavior has emerged and continues every minute that Johnny is present in the class. Last week a request for suspension was made and denied. Given the severe and repetitive nature of his actions I believe that a suspension is now well-warranted.
In addition to his in-class antics, there is little doubt in my mind that he is responsible for the series of late-night obscene and harassing phone calls placed to my residence over mid-winter break. My roommates were awoken multiple times, yelled at on the phone, and called “gay.” Two messages were left on the answering machine saying that I am “a faggot,” that I looked “so ugly it wasn’t like funny,” and saying “sweet dreams sexy boy” among other lewd and obscene suggestions. The police are currently investigating the situation and do not have a definitive identification at this moment, but based on the sound of the voice and vocabulary selection, in addition to a number of damning statements that Johnny made in class, it is wholly likely he was behind the phone calls.
In addition to his previous violations, Johnny committed the following discipline code infractions yesterday (27 February):
Level 1
B06 Behaving in a manner which disrupts the educational process (e.g., making excessive noise in a classroom, library or hallway)
B07 Engaging in verbally rude or disrespectful behavior
Level 2
B14 Using profane, obscene, vulgar, lewd or abusive language or gestures
B18 Engaging in a pattern of persistent Level 1 behavior*
Level 3
B20 Being insubordinate; defying or disobeying the lawful authority of school personnel or school safety agents
B22 Fighting/engaging in physically aggressive behavior
B26 Engaging in vandalism or other intentional damage to school property or property belonging to staff, students or others
B28 Engaging in sexual harassment (e.g., sexually suggestive comments, innuendoes, propositions or inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature such as touching, patting, pinching)
B33 Engaging in a pattern of persistent Level 2 behavior
Level 4
B36 Engaging in intimidating and bullying behavior – threatening, stalking or seeking to coerce or compel a student or staff member to do something; engaging in verbal or physical conduct that
threatens another with harm, including intimidation through the use of epithets or slurs involving race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, religious practices, gender, sexual orientation or disability
B43 Engaging in behavior which creates a substantial risk of or results in injury
B49 Engaging in repeated Level 3 behavior
The following are a few examples:
9:56 calls a female student a “dildo hopper,” and says “you’re a dick” then proceeds to hit her with a book (B06, B07, B22, B28)
10:08 throws a battery across the room (B06, B36)
10:22 tells a female student to “suck my nuts you white bitch” (B28)
11:55 enters room, screams, throws books against desk, breaking the binding and hitting my foot in the process (B26, B36)
11:56 exits the room to line up for lunch and immediately begins wrestling with another student in the hallway, he ignores my requests to stop (B20, B22)
1:52 throws the metal tip of a pen across the room, when I go to pick it up he hits me with a paper ball (B18, B43)
1:53 I send a note to the Asst. Principal or dean, Johnny screams at me calling me a “fuckin’ liar!” and then storms out of room (B14, B20, B33, B36)
1:56 throws pen at two girls who took the note, re-enters room, screams at me to “get the fuck outta here!” and says my “breath stinks like dead feet” among other things. (B14, B20, B36, B43, B49)
According to the discipline code, the minimum penalty for a B28 infraction (sexual harassment) is a parent conference, and the minimum penalty for either a B43 infraction (risking physical harm) or a B49 infraction (repeated level 3 behavior) is a principal’s suspension.
Corey Bunje Bower
cc:
Asst. Principal
Dean
Union Rep.
Regional Union Rep.
Oh, and in case you were wondering: "Johnny" was not suspended for any of the behaviors described in this letter . . . though he was suspended about a week or two later when he had a breakdown in the hallway and threatened to kill the Asst. Principal.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
-Can one "bad apple" ruin an entire classroom? Any teacher will tell you that they can. Robert Pondiscio reports on a pair of economists whose findings agree with this observation. I've speculated before about the potentially positive effects of expulsion, and this does little to change my mind.
-I'm not the only person flabbergasted by Brooks' piece on Friday. Claus Van Zastrow had a similar reaction ("What?!?") to the one I did. Diane Ravitch also thinks that Brooks learned the wrong lessons from the Promise Academy's success. Robert Pondiscio thinks Brooks should take some time to read Paul Tough's book that he recommended his readers check out. And a number of readers wrote letters to the editor that weren't exactly glowing.
-Speaking of Brooks' suggested reading, let me point out that I do agree with him that both Sweating the Small Stuff (my review here) and Whatever it Takes (I'll have some more thoughts on it in the next week or so) are both worthwhile reads. It's worth nothing that Brooks could've written nearly the exact column that he did referring only the schools in the former book and he wouldn't have been too out of line -- but I still can't get over his reaction to the success of the Promise Academy. I'd love to hear the reaction of Paul Tough and Geoffrey Canada to that column as well. And, while I'm thinking of it, Fordham but a free copy of Whitman's book online earlier this year -- I've lost the link, but I have the pdf if anybody is interested.
-I'm not the only person flabbergasted by Brooks' piece on Friday. Claus Van Zastrow had a similar reaction ("What?!?") to the one I did. Diane Ravitch also thinks that Brooks learned the wrong lessons from the Promise Academy's success. Robert Pondiscio thinks Brooks should take some time to read Paul Tough's book that he recommended his readers check out. And a number of readers wrote letters to the editor that weren't exactly glowing.
-Speaking of Brooks' suggested reading, let me point out that I do agree with him that both Sweating the Small Stuff (my review here) and Whatever it Takes (I'll have some more thoughts on it in the next week or so) are both worthwhile reads. It's worth nothing that Brooks could've written nearly the exact column that he did referring only the schools in the former book and he wouldn't have been too out of line -- but I still can't get over his reaction to the success of the Promise Academy. I'd love to hear the reaction of Paul Tough and Geoffrey Canada to that column as well. And, while I'm thinking of it, Fordham but a free copy of Whitman's book online earlier this year -- I've lost the link, but I have the pdf if anybody is interested.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Child See, Child Do
Anybody want to bet that the type of behavior we see in schools doesn't start at home?
Here's a lovely story about a mother who showed up at her kids' elementary school today and threatened to have her older daughter beat up another student. While being escorted from school grounds, she saw the student she was angry with and "struck them in the face."
We can't possibly believe that the children involved in this incident won't be colored by it. If this is what they see parents doing, why would they want to do any differently? This is precisely why it's so difficult to establish order in too many schools.
Let be be clear: I am not saying that it's impossible or that we shouldn't try, but I am saying that these discipline problems are starting at home -- meaning that schools don't start with a blank slate in September.
Here's a lovely story about a mother who showed up at her kids' elementary school today and threatened to have her older daughter beat up another student. While being escorted from school grounds, she saw the student she was angry with and "struck them in the face."
We can't possibly believe that the children involved in this incident won't be colored by it. If this is what they see parents doing, why would they want to do any differently? This is precisely why it's so difficult to establish order in too many schools.
Let be be clear: I am not saying that it's impossible or that we shouldn't try, but I am saying that these discipline problems are starting at home -- meaning that schools don't start with a blank slate in September.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Responding to Tantrums in the Classroom
Slate recently published an article by Alan Kazdin on how parents should react when their kids fly off the handle (hat tip: Alexander Russo). The article has obvious implications for what teachers should do when a student loses control in the classroom. And I'm not sure that the author would recommend the same course of action in such a circumstance, because the stakes are much higher and the external factors more complex.
Ultimately, the author recommends what he terms the "parking ticket" strategy: the parent reacts by calmly informing the child that a certain (previously discussed) privilege has been taken away, and then leaves the room. It's a balance of the desire to mete out punishment with the parent's job of being a good role model. The calm response and the immediate punishment send the message that the behavior is neither acceptable nor appropriate. In the short run, the child is sent a message; in the long run the child should act more calmly.
The rationale behind the recommendation makes sense, and seems to be the best option. Exploding in anger may truncate the behavior, but serves as a bad example; calmly explaining why the child should behave differently sets a good example but fails to address the behavior in the short-run; and ignoring it has similar implications.
This works at home. The child isn't allowed to watch TV that night, the parent sits in the living room and reads a magazine, the temper tantrum in the kitchen fizzles out, and soon all is back to normal. But I'm not sure the same strategy will work in a classroom. The idea of a "parking ticket" -- an immediate, but calmly delivered, consequence -- is still solid, but the teacher can't just leave the room until the child has calmed down. Furthermore, the teacher needs to take into account how the other children react to and what they learn from the incident.
In this way, it's even more important that the teacher set a good example -- screaming at the student inevitably sends the message that screaming and anger are acceptable. But, at the same time, the importance of indicating that the behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated is elevated as well. If Johhny starts screaming at the teacher and the teacher calmly tells him to be quiet and then waits five minutes for him to calm down, what are the other children supposed to think? How else could they interpret it other than "when I scream, nobody gets mad at me and we stop class for five minutes."
In other words, the immediate reaction is probably more necessary for the sake of preventing copycats than for conveying any sort of message to that particular student. In this way, a modified version of the "parking ticket" may be the best adjustment. The teacher should still remain calm (step 1), and should still immediately assign a pre-determined consequence (step 2), but the student should be the one to leave the room (step 3).
I see two problems with this: 1.) What happens when the child refuses to leave the room? (now the situation has been escalated) and 2.) Some places (e.g. NY) don't allow students to be removed from the room (because they're being deprived of their right to an education).
Not to mention that a school has to decide what to do with the child after they've left the room. At any rate, this seems like a reasonable strategy to me, but I might be missing something. Most of the books I've read, videos I've watched, and advice I've received about discipline is in line with steps 1 and 2 (though I can't honestly say they're in line with the wishes of some of the administrators at my school -- one of whom liked to say "you have to make them fear you, it's the only way"), but I'm unsure about step 3.
Ultimately, the author recommends what he terms the "parking ticket" strategy: the parent reacts by calmly informing the child that a certain (previously discussed) privilege has been taken away, and then leaves the room. It's a balance of the desire to mete out punishment with the parent's job of being a good role model. The calm response and the immediate punishment send the message that the behavior is neither acceptable nor appropriate. In the short run, the child is sent a message; in the long run the child should act more calmly.
The rationale behind the recommendation makes sense, and seems to be the best option. Exploding in anger may truncate the behavior, but serves as a bad example; calmly explaining why the child should behave differently sets a good example but fails to address the behavior in the short-run; and ignoring it has similar implications.
This works at home. The child isn't allowed to watch TV that night, the parent sits in the living room and reads a magazine, the temper tantrum in the kitchen fizzles out, and soon all is back to normal. But I'm not sure the same strategy will work in a classroom. The idea of a "parking ticket" -- an immediate, but calmly delivered, consequence -- is still solid, but the teacher can't just leave the room until the child has calmed down. Furthermore, the teacher needs to take into account how the other children react to and what they learn from the incident.
In this way, it's even more important that the teacher set a good example -- screaming at the student inevitably sends the message that screaming and anger are acceptable. But, at the same time, the importance of indicating that the behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated is elevated as well. If Johhny starts screaming at the teacher and the teacher calmly tells him to be quiet and then waits five minutes for him to calm down, what are the other children supposed to think? How else could they interpret it other than "when I scream, nobody gets mad at me and we stop class for five minutes."
In other words, the immediate reaction is probably more necessary for the sake of preventing copycats than for conveying any sort of message to that particular student. In this way, a modified version of the "parking ticket" may be the best adjustment. The teacher should still remain calm (step 1), and should still immediately assign a pre-determined consequence (step 2), but the student should be the one to leave the room (step 3).
I see two problems with this: 1.) What happens when the child refuses to leave the room? (now the situation has been escalated) and 2.) Some places (e.g. NY) don't allow students to be removed from the room (because they're being deprived of their right to an education).
Not to mention that a school has to decide what to do with the child after they've left the room. At any rate, this seems like a reasonable strategy to me, but I might be missing something. Most of the books I've read, videos I've watched, and advice I've received about discipline is in line with steps 1 and 2 (though I can't honestly say they're in line with the wishes of some of the administrators at my school -- one of whom liked to say "you have to make them fear you, it's the only way"), but I'm unsure about step 3.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tales from the Trenches: The Unpleasant Puddle
by Corey Bunje Bower
It was another ordinary February day at Middle School 135 in the Bronx (which is to say: chaos reigned and tempers flared). I took my class downstairs for gym class and then scampered off to grab a bite to eat. After wolfing down my turkey hero I hurried back to my classroom to prepare for the next period's lesson. A teacher I worked with happened to have just walked in as well.
Much to our dismay, we saw that three of the desks were covered in liquid. "Oh no" I moaned, figuring that some of the older kids had busted into my room during their lunch hour and sprayed Mountain Dew all over the place. I had filed a request months before for maintenance to fix the locks on my classroom doors so that something like this wouldn't happen. For the moment, though, there was only one thing to do -- we grabbed some paper towels and headed over to clean the desk in earnest.
As we surveyed the scene we noticed how wet everything had gotten -- folders, notebooks, backpacks, coats, etc. I wasn't at all happy about this, and to make it even worse the desks belonged to three of my hardest working students. The other teacher started to point out some of the damage while I unrolled the paper towels. I started to mop it up while she picked up a small container brimming with liquid. Then, suddenly, I heard her shriek: "EWWWWWWWWW!" And, with that, she ran out of the room.
"No," I thought, "it can't be." I bent closer to the desks and sniffed. It was! Somebody had peed all over three desks in my room. I soon followed in the run down the hallway.
After washing my heads I tried to figure out what to do next. The period was almost over, but I couldn't possibly let the kids back into the room while it was in this state. I found an Assistant Principal and informed him of the situation. For the first time in my year and a half there, action was swift: maintenance was called, my class was led to the auditorium, and a Dean watched over them until I could make it downstairs.
Rumors were quickly spreading among the members of my class when I reached the auditorium, including a crazy one that somebody's desk had been peed on -- convincing me that this was an inside job and not some rowdy seventh or eighth graders like I'd suspected. I spoke with the kids to see what I could learn while also steadfastly refusing to tell them why we were in the auditorium. In the middle of my Columbo imitation another AP walked in and told me she would watch my class while I spoke with the principal.
I walked into the principal's office and found the person I'd been looking for -- my supervisor, the AP for my section of my building. While seemingly every other administrator had been working to remedy the situation she had been sitting and discussing something with the principal. The principal addressed me: "Mr. Bower, what is going on?" Thinking that she wanted an update on the situation, I told her what had happened.
I was wrong; she didn't want an update of what had happened -- she had meant "what is going on?" in the parental sense, as in "what have you done?" Shocked, I told her that I failed to see how this was my fault -- I was not the person in charge (or, for that matter, even in the room) when it had happened. Apparently, she saw it otherwise. After a little venting, she told me that she would be observing me the next week and that there was a pre-observation letter in my mailbox.
Meanwhile, it didn't take long to get a confession from one of my students once he found out that they were reviewing footage from the security cameras. Apparently he'd asked one of the girls out at lunchtime and she'd turned him down. As retribution, he deemed it appropriate to urinate on her desk and her belongings -- the desks and belongings of the other two students were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (he'd asked to go the bathroom during gym class and, unbeknownst to the gym teacher, had headed for my room instead of the lavatory). For the first time that year, a student from my class was suspended. After five days of sitting at another school he entered my classroom again. One of the girls who'd been victimized grabbed a broomstick but, somehow, I managed to avoid a riot. Both he and the three girls remained in my class for the rest of the year.
Moral of the story: Children can take out their frustrations in odd ways . . . as can principals.
_______________________________________________________
Corey Bunje Bower taught sixth grade in the Bronx from 2004-2006. He is now a Ph.D. student in Education Policy at Vanderbilt University.
Tales from the Trenches is a regular feature on the blog Thoughts on Education Policy that aims to illuminate what it's like to work in a school. All current and former staff members are encouraged to submit their own war stories. Submissions may be sent to corey[at]edpolicythoughts.com; submitters must identify themselves, but may remain anonymous or use a pseudonym upon publication.
It was another ordinary February day at Middle School 135 in the Bronx (which is to say: chaos reigned and tempers flared). I took my class downstairs for gym class and then scampered off to grab a bite to eat. After wolfing down my turkey hero I hurried back to my classroom to prepare for the next period's lesson. A teacher I worked with happened to have just walked in as well.
Much to our dismay, we saw that three of the desks were covered in liquid. "Oh no" I moaned, figuring that some of the older kids had busted into my room during their lunch hour and sprayed Mountain Dew all over the place. I had filed a request months before for maintenance to fix the locks on my classroom doors so that something like this wouldn't happen. For the moment, though, there was only one thing to do -- we grabbed some paper towels and headed over to clean the desk in earnest.
As we surveyed the scene we noticed how wet everything had gotten -- folders, notebooks, backpacks, coats, etc. I wasn't at all happy about this, and to make it even worse the desks belonged to three of my hardest working students. The other teacher started to point out some of the damage while I unrolled the paper towels. I started to mop it up while she picked up a small container brimming with liquid. Then, suddenly, I heard her shriek: "EWWWWWWWWW!" And, with that, she ran out of the room.
"No," I thought, "it can't be." I bent closer to the desks and sniffed. It was! Somebody had peed all over three desks in my room. I soon followed in the run down the hallway.
After washing my heads I tried to figure out what to do next. The period was almost over, but I couldn't possibly let the kids back into the room while it was in this state. I found an Assistant Principal and informed him of the situation. For the first time in my year and a half there, action was swift: maintenance was called, my class was led to the auditorium, and a Dean watched over them until I could make it downstairs.
Rumors were quickly spreading among the members of my class when I reached the auditorium, including a crazy one that somebody's desk had been peed on -- convincing me that this was an inside job and not some rowdy seventh or eighth graders like I'd suspected. I spoke with the kids to see what I could learn while also steadfastly refusing to tell them why we were in the auditorium. In the middle of my Columbo imitation another AP walked in and told me she would watch my class while I spoke with the principal.
I walked into the principal's office and found the person I'd been looking for -- my supervisor, the AP for my section of my building. While seemingly every other administrator had been working to remedy the situation she had been sitting and discussing something with the principal. The principal addressed me: "Mr. Bower, what is going on?" Thinking that she wanted an update on the situation, I told her what had happened.
I was wrong; she didn't want an update of what had happened -- she had meant "what is going on?" in the parental sense, as in "what have you done?" Shocked, I told her that I failed to see how this was my fault -- I was not the person in charge (or, for that matter, even in the room) when it had happened. Apparently, she saw it otherwise. After a little venting, she told me that she would be observing me the next week and that there was a pre-observation letter in my mailbox.
Meanwhile, it didn't take long to get a confession from one of my students once he found out that they were reviewing footage from the security cameras. Apparently he'd asked one of the girls out at lunchtime and she'd turned him down. As retribution, he deemed it appropriate to urinate on her desk and her belongings -- the desks and belongings of the other two students were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (he'd asked to go the bathroom during gym class and, unbeknownst to the gym teacher, had headed for my room instead of the lavatory). For the first time that year, a student from my class was suspended. After five days of sitting at another school he entered my classroom again. One of the girls who'd been victimized grabbed a broomstick but, somehow, I managed to avoid a riot. Both he and the three girls remained in my class for the rest of the year.
Moral of the story: Children can take out their frustrations in odd ways . . . as can principals.
_______________________________________________________
Corey Bunje Bower taught sixth grade in the Bronx from 2004-2006. He is now a Ph.D. student in Education Policy at Vanderbilt University.
Tales from the Trenches is a regular feature on the blog Thoughts on Education Policy that aims to illuminate what it's like to work in a school. All current and former staff members are encouraged to submit their own war stories. Submissions may be sent to corey[at]edpolicythoughts.com; submitters must identify themselves, but may remain anonymous or use a pseudonym upon publication.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Today's Random Thoughts
Some interesting news items out there today:
-According to USA Today, a recent study found that students with recess behaved better in school. They don't describe the research very well, so I'm going to have to track down the actual article to see what it says. That breaks improve attention makes sense to me but, at the same time, when I was teaching the hardest times to get students under control were immediately after lunch and immediately after gym.
-An appeals court ruled that four teachers in Lansing, MI cannot sue their district over their perception that four students were not punished severely enough for major offenses including slapping a teacher and throwing chairs at another. The teachers claim that school-safety law (I think state law, but it's not clear) mandates that students are expelled after such actions, but the students in question were all suspended. I can sympathize with both sides on this one. On the one hand, any signal from above that such behavior is anything other than absolutely unacceptable makes teachers jobs more difficult (and potentially more dangerous). On the other, giving these students long suspensions doesn't exactly send the message that their actions were okay and, furthermore, the intervention of courts in school decisions always has the potential to really mess things up. Besides, if the teachers wanted to grab headlines with a lawsuit over atrocious behavior they should've sued the kids' parents.
-Houston handed out its performance bonuses today. Here are the two things I found most interesting about this:
1.) Bonuses for the 2007-08 school year were handed out sixth months after it finished. From what I've heard, research on extrinsic incentives find that they're much more effective when the time frame behind rewarded is shorter and the bonuses are given in short measure after the performance is completed.
2.) 90% of eligible employees received a bonus. Usually when merit-pay schemes are publicized they aim to reward only the best and brightest. I could see this going either way, though. I'm sure the number of people who receive bonuses makes this plan more acceptable to the union and possibly more popular among teachers, even if the trade off is that some below average performers are receiving bonuses. At the same time, a lot of places in the business world give bonuses to virtually all their employees -- with the size dependent upon both the performance of the business and the performance of the individual. Maybe it makes sense to think of bonuses as a regular part of one's pay that varies rather than something only a few special people receive.
-According to USA Today, a recent study found that students with recess behaved better in school. They don't describe the research very well, so I'm going to have to track down the actual article to see what it says. That breaks improve attention makes sense to me but, at the same time, when I was teaching the hardest times to get students under control were immediately after lunch and immediately after gym.
-An appeals court ruled that four teachers in Lansing, MI cannot sue their district over their perception that four students were not punished severely enough for major offenses including slapping a teacher and throwing chairs at another. The teachers claim that school-safety law (I think state law, but it's not clear) mandates that students are expelled after such actions, but the students in question were all suspended. I can sympathize with both sides on this one. On the one hand, any signal from above that such behavior is anything other than absolutely unacceptable makes teachers jobs more difficult (and potentially more dangerous). On the other, giving these students long suspensions doesn't exactly send the message that their actions were okay and, furthermore, the intervention of courts in school decisions always has the potential to really mess things up. Besides, if the teachers wanted to grab headlines with a lawsuit over atrocious behavior they should've sued the kids' parents.
-Houston handed out its performance bonuses today. Here are the two things I found most interesting about this:
1.) Bonuses for the 2007-08 school year were handed out sixth months after it finished. From what I've heard, research on extrinsic incentives find that they're much more effective when the time frame behind rewarded is shorter and the bonuses are given in short measure after the performance is completed.
2.) 90% of eligible employees received a bonus. Usually when merit-pay schemes are publicized they aim to reward only the best and brightest. I could see this going either way, though. I'm sure the number of people who receive bonuses makes this plan more acceptable to the union and possibly more popular among teachers, even if the trade off is that some below average performers are receiving bonuses. At the same time, a lot of places in the business world give bonuses to virtually all their employees -- with the size dependent upon both the performance of the business and the performance of the individual. Maybe it makes sense to think of bonuses as a regular part of one's pay that varies rather than something only a few special people receive.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Some Random Thoughts
I've gone AWOL as I've been absorbed in a few different projects, but here are a few things I've noticed lately:
-The Economist randomly slipped a section on school discipline into this week's column on America, which reads in part: "In New York City, where more than 60 bureaucratic steps are required to suspend a pupil for more than five days, teachers are so frightened of violating pupils’ rights that they cannot keep order."
-In a travesty, the 2008 Weblog awards for Best Education Blog includes neither Eduwonkette nor Bridging Differences, which I consider to be the two best education blogs around (the former for its quick-hitting insights and the latter for its unsurpassed thoughtfulness).
-I was, however, sent a link to this ranking of education blogs (which I'm 50/50 on whether or not it was spam intended to get me to click on their ads) that includes both Eduwonkette and this blog.
-Social promotion is often villified -- and I find it hard to disagree with much of the criticism -- but I have yet to come across a single piece of research that finds benefits from holding back students (note: I have not conducted an exhaustive search, so this doesn't mean it's not out there). Has anybody else seen something?
-The absurdity of the rhetoric from some people who consider themselves part of the "no excuses" crowd seems to increase on a consistent basis and is really starting to irk me (which is part of the reason I've taken the last month two off from reading most of the education blogs). I might just insert this into every post from now on: if there's anything upon which education researchers agree it's that student achievement is influenced more by non-school factors than in-school factors -- and the evidence is overwhelming. Please don't call me a defeatist for saying that if you want me to take you seriously.
-I plan on rolling out a few new features this year and hoping to start the first one this weekend. Stay tuned.
-The Economist randomly slipped a section on school discipline into this week's column on America, which reads in part: "In New York City, where more than 60 bureaucratic steps are required to suspend a pupil for more than five days, teachers are so frightened of violating pupils’ rights that they cannot keep order."
-In a travesty, the 2008 Weblog awards for Best Education Blog includes neither Eduwonkette nor Bridging Differences, which I consider to be the two best education blogs around (the former for its quick-hitting insights and the latter for its unsurpassed thoughtfulness).
-I was, however, sent a link to this ranking of education blogs (which I'm 50/50 on whether or not it was spam intended to get me to click on their ads) that includes both Eduwonkette and this blog.
-Social promotion is often villified -- and I find it hard to disagree with much of the criticism -- but I have yet to come across a single piece of research that finds benefits from holding back students (note: I have not conducted an exhaustive search, so this doesn't mean it's not out there). Has anybody else seen something?
-The absurdity of the rhetoric from some people who consider themselves part of the "no excuses" crowd seems to increase on a consistent basis and is really starting to irk me (which is part of the reason I've taken the last month two off from reading most of the education blogs). I might just insert this into every post from now on: if there's anything upon which education researchers agree it's that student achievement is influenced more by non-school factors than in-school factors -- and the evidence is overwhelming. Please don't call me a defeatist for saying that if you want me to take you seriously.
-I plan on rolling out a few new features this year and hoping to start the first one this weekend. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
More on "Broken Windows" and Education
I wrote a couple of days ago about the "broken windows" theory and education based on the recent article in Science. The theory essentially holds that small amounts of disorder will lead to more problems b/c people come to accept greater levels of disorder over time as it becomes the norm. And this certainly happens in schools as well as in neighborhoods.
But the authors make a bit of a finer distinction within the notion of disorder and norms. They divide social norms into "injunctive norms" and "descriptive norms" -- with the former representing, essentially, what people believe society deems acceptable and the latter representing solely what people observe, whether they believe it to be acceptable or not. The two are often in opposition -- for instance, if you think that speeding is a bad thing but also believe that almost everybody does it. In such a case I find it odd to call following speed limits a "norm" when you normally see people doing otherwise. I can be convinced otherwise, but I think the two would be better characterized as rules (whether written or unwritten) and norms. One dictates what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and the other dictates what is normal and abnormal behavior.
The experiments test both how behavior changes when people witness rule-breaking and how it changes when people perceive disorder as a norm. In the case of the former, people are more likely to litter when they hear illegal fireworks being shot off than when they don't. And in the case of the latter, people are twice as likely to steal an envelope with money in it when the mailbox is covered with graffiti or surrounded by litter.
In other words, there are two different ways in which disorder can affect a school: In the case of rule-breaking, when students see other students chewing gum, carrying cell phones, or breaking other rules that might not really be enforced they come to believe that rules, in general, aren't really enforced or important and are more likely to break them. In the case of degradation of norms, when students see others running, shouting, pushing, etc. they're more likely to believe that chaos (or at least unruly behavior) is the norm and conform accordingly. Or at least that's how my experience would lead me to believe their research translates to schools.
So what are the implications? I'd guess the vast majority of teachers and administrators would agree, at least to some extent, with the previous paragraph. But knowing that disorder begets disorder and stopping disorder are two different things. I don't have all the answers, but I would say two things are most important:
1.) Don't make rules that can't or won't be enforced. If you're not actually going to suspend a kid every time you see them carrying a cell phone, then don't say you will. And in the case where the principal sets the rule this applies not just to you personally, but to the staff collectively. If all teachers aren't going to enforce the rule, then it's probably not a good rule to have. If kids see other kids playing on their cell phone in class, and those kids aren't suspended the next day then nobody's going to take that rule seriously. And once kids learn that not every rule has to be taken seriously, every other rule is in peril as well.
2.) Take action against low levels of disorder. That means somebody talking out of turn in class, yelling in the hallway, refusing to do assignments, etc. Maybe rules against such aren't codified, but when something small like this occurs it's important that the student is both made aware that it's unacceptable and that the behvaior is nipped in the bud to whatever degree possible.
Implementing number two is a task that I don't envy. What happens when a kid is made aware that his/her behavior is unacceptable and they continue it anyway? Some sort of consequences must follow. What happens when the student isn't bothered by the consequences and continues the behavior? Now the school's in a pickle (unless, of course, they can expel the student -- but even then such a decision should not be made lightly).
But the authors make a bit of a finer distinction within the notion of disorder and norms. They divide social norms into "injunctive norms" and "descriptive norms" -- with the former representing, essentially, what people believe society deems acceptable and the latter representing solely what people observe, whether they believe it to be acceptable or not. The two are often in opposition -- for instance, if you think that speeding is a bad thing but also believe that almost everybody does it. In such a case I find it odd to call following speed limits a "norm" when you normally see people doing otherwise. I can be convinced otherwise, but I think the two would be better characterized as rules (whether written or unwritten) and norms. One dictates what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and the other dictates what is normal and abnormal behavior.
The experiments test both how behavior changes when people witness rule-breaking and how it changes when people perceive disorder as a norm. In the case of the former, people are more likely to litter when they hear illegal fireworks being shot off than when they don't. And in the case of the latter, people are twice as likely to steal an envelope with money in it when the mailbox is covered with graffiti or surrounded by litter.
In other words, there are two different ways in which disorder can affect a school: In the case of rule-breaking, when students see other students chewing gum, carrying cell phones, or breaking other rules that might not really be enforced they come to believe that rules, in general, aren't really enforced or important and are more likely to break them. In the case of degradation of norms, when students see others running, shouting, pushing, etc. they're more likely to believe that chaos (or at least unruly behavior) is the norm and conform accordingly. Or at least that's how my experience would lead me to believe their research translates to schools.
So what are the implications? I'd guess the vast majority of teachers and administrators would agree, at least to some extent, with the previous paragraph. But knowing that disorder begets disorder and stopping disorder are two different things. I don't have all the answers, but I would say two things are most important:
1.) Don't make rules that can't or won't be enforced. If you're not actually going to suspend a kid every time you see them carrying a cell phone, then don't say you will. And in the case where the principal sets the rule this applies not just to you personally, but to the staff collectively. If all teachers aren't going to enforce the rule, then it's probably not a good rule to have. If kids see other kids playing on their cell phone in class, and those kids aren't suspended the next day then nobody's going to take that rule seriously. And once kids learn that not every rule has to be taken seriously, every other rule is in peril as well.
2.) Take action against low levels of disorder. That means somebody talking out of turn in class, yelling in the hallway, refusing to do assignments, etc. Maybe rules against such aren't codified, but when something small like this occurs it's important that the student is both made aware that it's unacceptable and that the behvaior is nipped in the bud to whatever degree possible.
Implementing number two is a task that I don't envy. What happens when a kid is made aware that his/her behavior is unacceptable and they continue it anyway? Some sort of consequences must follow. What happens when the student isn't bothered by the consequences and continues the behavior? Now the school's in a pickle (unless, of course, they can expel the student -- but even then such a decision should not be made lightly).
Monday, November 24, 2008
Schools and "Broken Windows"
I think virtually everybody is familiar with the "broken windows" theory of crime prevention made famous by Rudy Giuliani -- the notion that small amounts of disorder (e.g. broken windows) can, over time, foster more crime and that the way to prevent large amounts of crime is to crack down on small things before they snowball.
Well, now some researchers have conducted a series of experiments to test out this theory (hat tip: Ideas Blog). The experiments were small-scale. For example, they left an envelope with a 5 euro bill in it sticking out of a mailbox. People were twice as likely to steal the money if mailbox was covered in graffiti or surrounded by trash (abstract). Both the full paper and the article summarizing it are behind a subscription wall, but The Economist has a good synopsis of the findings here.
None of the experiments involve schools, but they do involve people breaking rules and not following directions -- something that happens an awful lot in some schools. The broken windows theory has received a lot of criticism, but I think a lot of this may be due to the way that policies were enacted rather than the underlying truth of the theory. I'd welcome hearing from somebody who disagrees, but it's hard for me to see the general theory as anything but intuitively true.
If you buy the theory, it leads one to believe that we should implement "zero tolerance" policies in our schools. But such policies have become a lightning rod for criticism. Why? Probably because they're zero tolerance for major infractions like bringing weapons to school and sexual harassment. Kids being suspended or expelled for bringing plastic knives or for kindergartners touching members of the opposite sex in ways they couldn't really comprehend was sexual has led to widespread disgruntlement with such policies.
While weapons and sexual harassment are huge problems and should be dealt with as such, they're far from the largest obstacles to learning on a day-to-day basis in most schools. That honor would go to minor issues like talking in class. I would argue that these are the true "broken windows" of schools.
And I think a lot of teachers know as such. A lot of the discussion amongst teachers in my school centered around relatively minor incidents that they believed served as tipping points in their classroom. For example: a teacher next door to me my first year had a student that was momentarily out of control and clearly crossed the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Just then the Asst. Principal stepped into the room and asked if the teacher needed anything. The teacher replied that they needed the AP to remove the student from the classroom for a few minutes. The AP declined to do so. And from that point forward, students knew they could get away with things that they had previously believed they couldn't.
Now, that's not really a true fit for broken windows theory, but I could tell a thousand other similar stories. The bottom line is that it was quite clear to me that students were more likely to act up when they perceived that such actions were acceptable b/c they seemed to be the norm in the classroom, hallway, cafeteria, etc. As such, it seems that a zero-tolerance policy of some sort is wholly merited. How else to prevent the chaos that reigns in too many (note: "too many" does not imply anywhere near a majority) schools today. But how to implement one?
In other words, can a school implement a zero-tolerance policy in a way that is neither draconian nor militaristic? The closest I've seen to such policies (though I'm not sure they're 100% non-draconian/militaristic) is in the so-called paternalistic schools that David Whitman profiles. The schools go to great lengths to ensure that not a single infraction goes unnoticed, no matter how small. I'm not sure that all schools confronted by discipline problems should (or can) mirror these policies, but I think the theory behind them is sound.
Well, now some researchers have conducted a series of experiments to test out this theory (hat tip: Ideas Blog). The experiments were small-scale. For example, they left an envelope with a 5 euro bill in it sticking out of a mailbox. People were twice as likely to steal the money if mailbox was covered in graffiti or surrounded by trash (abstract). Both the full paper and the article summarizing it are behind a subscription wall, but The Economist has a good synopsis of the findings here.
None of the experiments involve schools, but they do involve people breaking rules and not following directions -- something that happens an awful lot in some schools. The broken windows theory has received a lot of criticism, but I think a lot of this may be due to the way that policies were enacted rather than the underlying truth of the theory. I'd welcome hearing from somebody who disagrees, but it's hard for me to see the general theory as anything but intuitively true.
If you buy the theory, it leads one to believe that we should implement "zero tolerance" policies in our schools. But such policies have become a lightning rod for criticism. Why? Probably because they're zero tolerance for major infractions like bringing weapons to school and sexual harassment. Kids being suspended or expelled for bringing plastic knives or for kindergartners touching members of the opposite sex in ways they couldn't really comprehend was sexual has led to widespread disgruntlement with such policies.
While weapons and sexual harassment are huge problems and should be dealt with as such, they're far from the largest obstacles to learning on a day-to-day basis in most schools. That honor would go to minor issues like talking in class. I would argue that these are the true "broken windows" of schools.
And I think a lot of teachers know as such. A lot of the discussion amongst teachers in my school centered around relatively minor incidents that they believed served as tipping points in their classroom. For example: a teacher next door to me my first year had a student that was momentarily out of control and clearly crossed the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Just then the Asst. Principal stepped into the room and asked if the teacher needed anything. The teacher replied that they needed the AP to remove the student from the classroom for a few minutes. The AP declined to do so. And from that point forward, students knew they could get away with things that they had previously believed they couldn't.
Now, that's not really a true fit for broken windows theory, but I could tell a thousand other similar stories. The bottom line is that it was quite clear to me that students were more likely to act up when they perceived that such actions were acceptable b/c they seemed to be the norm in the classroom, hallway, cafeteria, etc. As such, it seems that a zero-tolerance policy of some sort is wholly merited. How else to prevent the chaos that reigns in too many (note: "too many" does not imply anywhere near a majority) schools today. But how to implement one?
In other words, can a school implement a zero-tolerance policy in a way that is neither draconian nor militaristic? The closest I've seen to such policies (though I'm not sure they're 100% non-draconian/militaristic) is in the so-called paternalistic schools that David Whitman profiles. The schools go to great lengths to ensure that not a single infraction goes unnoticed, no matter how small. I'm not sure that all schools confronted by discipline problems should (or can) mirror these policies, but I think the theory behind them is sound.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Oops, Forgot a Variable
The Fordham blog alerted me to the fact that George Will again mentioned David Whitman's new book in his latest column (which, if you haven't noticed, intensely interests me).
Will's column focuses on one of the schools profiled in the book -- Cristo Rey Jesuit High School -- and its positive outcomes. As far as I can tell, Cristo Rey is doing an admirable job educating low-income students and deserves a lot of praise. So I'm glad Will took the time to highlight their educational model and achievements.
But near the end Will makes a statement that is somewhere between overly simplistic and absurd. I'll post the entire paragraph below:
From a research standpoint, here's the problem with that statement: his model is misspecified -- it suffers from omitted variable bias. And it's particularly egregious in this case b/c he leaves out a potentially confounding variable -- selection. If he published a paper with such findings, they would be dubbed spurious.
He attributes all of the successes of the school to the fact that they don't have to deal with as much red tape as other schools (particularly public schools). But he fails to mention that the larger reason the school can have such policies is because they can select their students -- both which ones are admitted and which ones are allowed to remain enrolled. And, perhaps even more important, the students who enroll are from families who chose to apply and chose to pay at least a small fee to enroll their children -- and then chose to remain enrolled once they knew what the school was like.
In Whitman's book, he writes that 43% of students who applied in 2006 were admitted (p. 142), and that the retention rate (percentage of students who remained enrolled) from freshman to senior year was 62% (p. 144). In other words, a significant number of kids (about 73% of those who apply) either choose not to or are not allowed to complete 4 years at the school.
Part of the reason why public schools can't have such strict discipline codes is due to bureacracy, but the larger reason is because they can't select their students -- meaning that they have to accomodate everybody, and they must have options for students who don't like the rules other than expulsion.
Will's column focuses on one of the schools profiled in the book -- Cristo Rey Jesuit High School -- and its positive outcomes. As far as I can tell, Cristo Rey is doing an admirable job educating low-income students and deserves a lot of praise. So I'm glad Will took the time to highlight their educational model and achievements.
But near the end Will makes a statement that is somewhere between overly simplistic and absurd. I'll post the entire paragraph below:
CRJHS can have its work program, its entirely college preparatory courses ("the old, dead white man's curriculum," says an English teacher cheerfully), its zero tolerance of disorder (from gang symbols down to chewing gum), its enforcement of decorum (couples dancing suggestively are told to "leave some space there for the Holy Spirit") and its requirement that every family pay something, if only as little as $25 a month. It can have all this because it is not shackled by bureaucracy or unions, as public schools are.
From a research standpoint, here's the problem with that statement: his model is misspecified -- it suffers from omitted variable bias. And it's particularly egregious in this case b/c he leaves out a potentially confounding variable -- selection. If he published a paper with such findings, they would be dubbed spurious.
He attributes all of the successes of the school to the fact that they don't have to deal with as much red tape as other schools (particularly public schools). But he fails to mention that the larger reason the school can have such policies is because they can select their students -- both which ones are admitted and which ones are allowed to remain enrolled. And, perhaps even more important, the students who enroll are from families who chose to apply and chose to pay at least a small fee to enroll their children -- and then chose to remain enrolled once they knew what the school was like.
In Whitman's book, he writes that 43% of students who applied in 2006 were admitted (p. 142), and that the retention rate (percentage of students who remained enrolled) from freshman to senior year was 62% (p. 144). In other words, a significant number of kids (about 73% of those who apply) either choose not to or are not allowed to complete 4 years at the school.
Part of the reason why public schools can't have such strict discipline codes is due to bureacracy, but the larger reason is because they can't select their students -- meaning that they have to accomodate everybody, and they must have options for students who don't like the rules other than expulsion.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Replicating Paternalistic Discipline
More follow-up on my review of David Whitman's new book, Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools and the New Paternalism:
I've written I don't know how many times about the discipline problems that my school faced and that I've seen and heard about in other schools. Whitman argues that eliminating discipline problems may be the key to success in the schools he describes, writing that "the most distinctive feature of new paternalistic schools is that they are fixated on curbing disorder" (p. 37).
From what he describes, and from what I've heard, about these schools it seems like they've found a way to create an orderly environment where so many others have failed. So here's the key question: can their strategies be replicated by others? The biggest red flag that I, and others, have raised is that these schools may be able to use strategies that traditional public schools cannot.
Below are some excerpts from the book regarding the schools' discipline policies.
Cristo Rey:
"Merely fraternizing with gang members can lead to expulsion." (p. 38)
"If a student even draws gang graffiti on a notebook or piece of paper, we deal with it. They might be suspended for a day the first time. The second time it happened -- well, that would be your last day here." (p. 137)
American Indian Public Charter School:
"has never expelled a student" (p. 82)
"I've added Sunday school as well [for disciplinary infractions]. Sunday school is at [the principal's] house. The kids come by and do yard work." (p. 93)
Amistad Academy
"Over eight years, Amistad has expelled only two students" (p. 114)
"are expected to keep student attrition to less than 5 percent a year (not counting youngsters who move out of the district)" (p. 119-120)
KIPP
"students learn the rubric of SLANT in class (Sit up straight, Listen, Answer and ask questions, Nod your head if you understand, and Track the speaker)" (p. 156)
"has two fulltime social workers who meet with the most at-risk students on a dialy basis and with all KIPP students regularly." (p. 170)
"hardly ever expels a student" (p. 176)
SEED
"unapologetically expels more students than day schools: 5.6% of its pupils each year, on average, compared to 1.8 percent at other charter schools" (p. 205-206)
"on average, about 30 percent fail to move on to ninth grade during their first attempt and must repeat eighth grade as a 'growth year.'" (p. 213)
University Park
"In its ten years to date, just one student has dropped out of UPCS" (p. 226)
A student "recalls that the "other teachers said to me 'we know you're a good kid, but you can't act like that and stay here'" (p. 232)
Overall, the picture looks mixed. Some of these schools certainly rely on expulsion, or at least the threat of expulsion, to keep students in line. Beyond expulsion, some schools clearly rely on convincing students to leave -- particularly by holding back students if they choose to remain. Whitman writes "Studnets who flunk grades and face repeating a year, and those intimidated by the academic demands of rigorous schools, exit to neighborhood schools that practice social promotio" (p. 255). On the other hand, some of the schools cited have exceedingly low attrition rates. It's possible that a school can use expulsion as merely a threat and not actually implement it, but the picture is unclear on how much that happens.
Lastly, principals in particular at some of these schools use techniques that would be explicitly prohibited in many schools. The principal at AIPCS makes students do yard work at his house on Sundays as punishment. That is, plain and clear, corporal punishment -- a big no-no in NYC and many other areas. Furthermore, it's hard for me to imagine that many schools are allowed to mandate that students do anything on weekends much less show up for detention. Whether he's able to do this because he's running a charter school or because he simply doesn't care about the consequences if somebody finds out he's doing this is unclear.
I don't know whether or not these discipline systems can be successfully replicated in traditional public schools, but some red flags certainly exist. Let's just assume for a minute that they cannot in the current system. The question then would whether we should: create more charter schools; give traditional public schools more power (e.g. allowing expulsion); or look to other sources to create discipline systems.
I've written I don't know how many times about the discipline problems that my school faced and that I've seen and heard about in other schools. Whitman argues that eliminating discipline problems may be the key to success in the schools he describes, writing that "the most distinctive feature of new paternalistic schools is that they are fixated on curbing disorder" (p. 37).
From what he describes, and from what I've heard, about these schools it seems like they've found a way to create an orderly environment where so many others have failed. So here's the key question: can their strategies be replicated by others? The biggest red flag that I, and others, have raised is that these schools may be able to use strategies that traditional public schools cannot.
Below are some excerpts from the book regarding the schools' discipline policies.
Cristo Rey:
"Merely fraternizing with gang members can lead to expulsion." (p. 38)
"If a student even draws gang graffiti on a notebook or piece of paper, we deal with it. They might be suspended for a day the first time. The second time it happened -- well, that would be your last day here." (p. 137)
American Indian Public Charter School:
"has never expelled a student" (p. 82)
"I've added Sunday school as well [for disciplinary infractions]. Sunday school is at [the principal's] house. The kids come by and do yard work." (p. 93)
Amistad Academy
"Over eight years, Amistad has expelled only two students" (p. 114)
"are expected to keep student attrition to less than 5 percent a year (not counting youngsters who move out of the district)" (p. 119-120)
KIPP
"students learn the rubric of SLANT in class (Sit up straight, Listen, Answer and ask questions, Nod your head if you understand, and Track the speaker)" (p. 156)
"has two fulltime social workers who meet with the most at-risk students on a dialy basis and with all KIPP students regularly." (p. 170)
"hardly ever expels a student" (p. 176)
SEED
"unapologetically expels more students than day schools: 5.6% of its pupils each year, on average, compared to 1.8 percent at other charter schools" (p. 205-206)
"on average, about 30 percent fail to move on to ninth grade during their first attempt and must repeat eighth grade as a 'growth year.'" (p. 213)
University Park
"In its ten years to date, just one student has dropped out of UPCS" (p. 226)
A student "recalls that the "other teachers said to me 'we know you're a good kid, but you can't act like that and stay here'" (p. 232)
Overall, the picture looks mixed. Some of these schools certainly rely on expulsion, or at least the threat of expulsion, to keep students in line. Beyond expulsion, some schools clearly rely on convincing students to leave -- particularly by holding back students if they choose to remain. Whitman writes "Studnets who flunk grades and face repeating a year, and those intimidated by the academic demands of rigorous schools, exit to neighborhood schools that practice social promotio" (p. 255). On the other hand, some of the schools cited have exceedingly low attrition rates. It's possible that a school can use expulsion as merely a threat and not actually implement it, but the picture is unclear on how much that happens.
Lastly, principals in particular at some of these schools use techniques that would be explicitly prohibited in many schools. The principal at AIPCS makes students do yard work at his house on Sundays as punishment. That is, plain and clear, corporal punishment -- a big no-no in NYC and many other areas. Furthermore, it's hard for me to imagine that many schools are allowed to mandate that students do anything on weekends much less show up for detention. Whether he's able to do this because he's running a charter school or because he simply doesn't care about the consequences if somebody finds out he's doing this is unclear.
I don't know whether or not these discipline systems can be successfully replicated in traditional public schools, but some red flags certainly exist. Let's just assume for a minute that they cannot in the current system. The question then would whether we should: create more charter schools; give traditional public schools more power (e.g. allowing expulsion); or look to other sources to create discipline systems.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Uniforms and Discipline Problems
I just got around to reading the article under an interesting headline in the Nashville paper yesterday -- "Uniforms may have contributed to safer Metro schools."
Here's the first line of the article: "Fewer Nashville students brought guns, knives or drugs to school during their first year wearing school uniforms, but district officials can't draw a direct link between the clothes and the numbers."
A few things to say about this:
1.) The headline is irresponsible. First of all, there's really no way to establish causality in this case. Second of all, although "serious assaults" may have decreased, "Overall, simple assaults on students — ones not involving weapons or serious injuries — increased 89 percent across the district and 211 percent in traditional high schools." I'm willing to bet that "simple assaults" generally have a much larger influence on school climate and student learning than do the much rarer "serious assaults."
2.) I'm at least 99% sure that the discipline data is meaningless. Which incidents get reported vary so much by teacher, administrator, and circumstance that comparing one year to another most likely means nothing.
3.) I have yet to see any rigorous empirical research that finds that uniforms cause fewer discipline problems, but uniforms seem to be more of gut-level decision anyway. When Nashville adopted the new uniform policy the school board was told that no evidence was available that this would work, but proponents of the plan literally shed tears as they pleaded their case.
I can't blame anybody for wanting kids in chaotic schools to wear uniforms. In such an environment it's entirely logical to think that orderly dress might bring a little more orderly behavior (I certainly would have supported uniforms at my school). But I get the impression that uniform policies are driven at least as much by class and culture. Teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members are, with few exceptions, college graduates. Which means that, for the most part, they come from middle to upper income homes and neighborhoods. When they see kids running around acting and dressing strangely they get frustrated that the kids don't act more like the way they did when they were kids. So I'm guessing, even if most people won't say it, that what's running through a lot of people's heads is something to the effect of "if they dressed more like us, maybe they'd act more like us."
Here's the first line of the article: "Fewer Nashville students brought guns, knives or drugs to school during their first year wearing school uniforms, but district officials can't draw a direct link between the clothes and the numbers."
A few things to say about this:
1.) The headline is irresponsible. First of all, there's really no way to establish causality in this case. Second of all, although "serious assaults" may have decreased, "Overall, simple assaults on students — ones not involving weapons or serious injuries — increased 89 percent across the district and 211 percent in traditional high schools." I'm willing to bet that "simple assaults" generally have a much larger influence on school climate and student learning than do the much rarer "serious assaults."
2.) I'm at least 99% sure that the discipline data is meaningless. Which incidents get reported vary so much by teacher, administrator, and circumstance that comparing one year to another most likely means nothing.
3.) I have yet to see any rigorous empirical research that finds that uniforms cause fewer discipline problems, but uniforms seem to be more of gut-level decision anyway. When Nashville adopted the new uniform policy the school board was told that no evidence was available that this would work, but proponents of the plan literally shed tears as they pleaded their case.
I can't blame anybody for wanting kids in chaotic schools to wear uniforms. In such an environment it's entirely logical to think that orderly dress might bring a little more orderly behavior (I certainly would have supported uniforms at my school). But I get the impression that uniform policies are driven at least as much by class and culture. Teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members are, with few exceptions, college graduates. Which means that, for the most part, they come from middle to upper income homes and neighborhoods. When they see kids running around acting and dressing strangely they get frustrated that the kids don't act more like the way they did when they were kids. So I'm guessing, even if most people won't say it, that what's running through a lot of people's heads is something to the effect of "if they dressed more like us, maybe they'd act more like us."
Saturday, August 2, 2008
ASA Day 1
I'm here at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association. Today was actually the second day of the conference, but the first I was able to attend. I heard a number of interesting presentations today -- here are some tidbits:
-In "School Disengagement and Problem Behavior: Distinguishing Cause from Consequence," Joseph Michael Gaspar and Paul Hirschfield examined the relationship between disengagement and delinquency in Chicago middle-schoolers. One model found that delinquency led to disengagement in school a year and a half later, but that disengagement did not lead to delinquency a year and a half later. Another model, however, using fixed-effects, found that both conditions led to more of the other condition a year later. The authors' preliminary conclusion is that delinquency causes more negative outcomes in the long-run while disengagement may affect students more in the short-term. One weakness was that "delinquency" was broadly defined and included many things that happen outside of school -- I'd be more interested in finding out if disengagement in school leads to more delinquency.
-In "Schools and Delinquency Revisited: Delinquent Affiliations in Middle and High School," Mark Warr and Robert Crosnoe looked at the actions of students' friends. They found that delinquent behavior increased steadily until about 10th grade, when it leveled off. Similarly, they found that moral condemnation of such behavior declined steadily until about 10th grade, when it also leveled off. The delinquency level of students in some schools was about 10x as high as in others -- meaning that significant differences do exist. The only students they found that were "peer-proof" and did not make friends with delinquent individuals were those that were highly religious and those that were socially isolated. Among those who said that all of their friends were going to college, 91% planned on attending college. Among those who said that none of their friends were going to college, less than half planned on attending college.
-In "Juvenile Delinquency, College Attendance, and the Paradoxical Role of Higher Education in Crime and Substance Use," Patrick Michael Seffrin and Stephen A. Cernkovich looked at the behavioral trends of those who do and do not attend college. They found that those who did not attend college drank alcohol and used drugs more often and committed more crimes before attending college. While attending college, however, college students drank more alcohol, used more drugs, and committed more crimes than their similarly aged peers who were not in college -- a surprising reversal. The authors attribute the increase in crime to the increase in alcohol consumption and the increase in unstructured socializing.
-In "School Disengagement and Problem Behavior: Distinguishing Cause from Consequence," Joseph Michael Gaspar and Paul Hirschfield examined the relationship between disengagement and delinquency in Chicago middle-schoolers. One model found that delinquency led to disengagement in school a year and a half later, but that disengagement did not lead to delinquency a year and a half later. Another model, however, using fixed-effects, found that both conditions led to more of the other condition a year later. The authors' preliminary conclusion is that delinquency causes more negative outcomes in the long-run while disengagement may affect students more in the short-term. One weakness was that "delinquency" was broadly defined and included many things that happen outside of school -- I'd be more interested in finding out if disengagement in school leads to more delinquency.
-In "Schools and Delinquency Revisited: Delinquent Affiliations in Middle and High School," Mark Warr and Robert Crosnoe looked at the actions of students' friends. They found that delinquent behavior increased steadily until about 10th grade, when it leveled off. Similarly, they found that moral condemnation of such behavior declined steadily until about 10th grade, when it also leveled off. The delinquency level of students in some schools was about 10x as high as in others -- meaning that significant differences do exist. The only students they found that were "peer-proof" and did not make friends with delinquent individuals were those that were highly religious and those that were socially isolated. Among those who said that all of their friends were going to college, 91% planned on attending college. Among those who said that none of their friends were going to college, less than half planned on attending college.
-In "Juvenile Delinquency, College Attendance, and the Paradoxical Role of Higher Education in Crime and Substance Use," Patrick Michael Seffrin and Stephen A. Cernkovich looked at the behavioral trends of those who do and do not attend college. They found that those who did not attend college drank alcohol and used drugs more often and committed more crimes before attending college. While attending college, however, college students drank more alcohol, used more drugs, and committed more crimes than their similarly aged peers who were not in college -- a surprising reversal. The authors attribute the increase in crime to the increase in alcohol consumption and the increase in unstructured socializing.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
And How Much Structure is Too Much Structure?
Before I started teaching, every person with whom I spoke during pre-service training said the same two things were most important in a classroom: structure and routines. I didn't believe them, and I learned the hard way. A group of chaotic students isn't conducive to learning, and is pleasant for anybody to be around. But I wonder at what point there's a trade-off between creating an ordered environment and teaching students self-control and independent thinking. If students do nothing but follow routines, what will happen to them when they're out on their own?
What got me thinking about the subject was this post on the Fordham blog. In it, the author, Christina Hentges, describes their experience riding the metro with a group of KIPP students. Here's an excerpt:
They appear as a small army of pre-teens in matching t-shirts, standing single-file on the right side of the escalator. Several adults walk alongside various points in the line while one leader holds court at one entry/exit turnstile (leaving the other three or four clear for commuters). He hands out a farecard to each child, who then goes through the gate and returns the card to an adult waiting on the other side. The children continue to the next escalator, remaining in single file as they ride up to the street or down to the train platform. While waiting for everyone to assemble, they line up in rows of 10; once everyone arrives, each child pulls out a chapter book and begins to read. They stay this way until they’re instructed to move along. The choreography is impeccable every time.
Part of me thinks this is good. It's hard to imagine exactly how it would be helping the students (not to mention the other commuters) if they ran pell-mell around the station. I like that they're being trained to respect others. I like that they're being trained to read during downtime. I like that they are under control.
And yet . . . I can't help but wonder what the students are learning from this. Are they learning that they should control themselves or that they need to follow directions? When they visit the subway station with their friends, do they walk calmly over to a bench and read quietly until the train arrives -- or do they go nuts b/c they don't have to follow directions?
Structure and order are necessary but, at some point, I have to believe that they're detrimental.
What got me thinking about the subject was this post on the Fordham blog. In it, the author, Christina Hentges, describes their experience riding the metro with a group of KIPP students. Here's an excerpt:
They appear as a small army of pre-teens in matching t-shirts, standing single-file on the right side of the escalator. Several adults walk alongside various points in the line while one leader holds court at one entry/exit turnstile (leaving the other three or four clear for commuters). He hands out a farecard to each child, who then goes through the gate and returns the card to an adult waiting on the other side. The children continue to the next escalator, remaining in single file as they ride up to the street or down to the train platform. While waiting for everyone to assemble, they line up in rows of 10; once everyone arrives, each child pulls out a chapter book and begins to read. They stay this way until they’re instructed to move along. The choreography is impeccable every time.
Part of me thinks this is good. It's hard to imagine exactly how it would be helping the students (not to mention the other commuters) if they ran pell-mell around the station. I like that they're being trained to respect others. I like that they're being trained to read during downtime. I like that they are under control.
And yet . . . I can't help but wonder what the students are learning from this. Are they learning that they should control themselves or that they need to follow directions? When they visit the subway station with their friends, do they walk calmly over to a bench and read quietly until the train arrives -- or do they go nuts b/c they don't have to follow directions?
Structure and order are necessary but, at some point, I have to believe that they're detrimental.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Defending the Indefensible
Sometimes I do stupid things. And today seems like a good day to do something stupid.
This story recently broke about a teacher who said some pretty harsh things to a 5 year-old in her kindergarten class. I won't copy the whole transcript but, in part, she said:
"I've been more than nice to you all year long and you've been ignorant, selfish, self-absorbed, the whole thing! I'm done! . . . Something needs to be done because you are pathetic! If me saying these words to you hurt, I hope it does because you're hurting everyone else around you."
Joanne Jacobs immediately pounced, writing, in part, "I don’t care how aggravating this boy was. He’s five years old."
Robert Pondiscio followed that up by highlighting one of the comments on Jacobs' blog that reads “I wonder how prevalent such abuse is; could this be more widespread than it looks?”
So, back to the plan for doing something stupid. I'm going to defend the teacher's actions. She may or may not deserve it, but I'll give it a stab anyway.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that it was okay for her to say these things. I thought berating students like this was over the top in my school -- and our kids were two to three times the age of this kid. She clearly shouldn't have said these things, and I'm assuming she realizes that as well.
That said, I'm also going to stick my neck out there and argue that what she did doesn't prove that she's the worst person in the world. To answer the question highlighted by Pondiscio, I firmly believe that such verbal abuse is more widespread than people realize. And not just in schools. I've heard worse things said by teachers, administrators, and parents (not to mention from students as well -- directed at both other students and at adults). I certainly said things that I now regret while teaching, and I know many others who have as well.
Granted, the fact that other people say things that are just as bad or worse doesn't excuse her actions (I can hear my Dad saying "If everybody else jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge does that mean that you would too?"), but it does lend some context. Why do people say things like this? That's the question that I'm not hearing asked.
In my case, and I'm guessing in others as well, one has to be pretty frustrated before they would say something like this. It takes a lot to make me frustrated enough to say something mean to somebody or yell and scream but trying to teach in my school was enough to do it. I can say with utmost confidence that trying to teach in my school was, far and away, the most frustrating thing I have ever tried to do. And discipline problems were, far and away, the most frustrating thing about trying to teach at my school.
Now, I have no idea what her school is like. Maybe her school is idyllic and she didn't like that he asked for strawberry milk even though she only has plain and chocolate. I'm not going to eliminate the possibility that she's simply a monster, but I'd say the odds are against it.
Anybody out there who's reading this and had kids, has taught kids, or has otherwise spent a great deal of time dealing with kids: have you ever snapped and lost your temper? Have you ever said anything you regretted? You probably realized that it was mean and counter-productive after the fact, but you can't go back and not say those things.
In the case of teachers, they snap . . . they lose their cool . . . they say things they shouldn't. And it's because they're human. Some do it more than others, some never do it, but it's something that I think we should confront. And I don't think vilifying teachers who happen to be caught on tape is going to solve the problem. Certainly what she said was over the line and her suspension is deserved, but let's not pretend that this is an isolated incident.
If we really want to prevent things like this from happening, we need to take a closer look at discipline issues. In my school, kids were out of control and teachers were expected to control them virtually single-handedly. If a teacher had a problem with a student, it was generally considered the teacher's fault. That's not an environment conducive to kindness and understanding on behalf of teachers. We have to realize that being a teacher can be frustrating and that discipline problems are a large source of frustration for many teachers. Personally, I think we should try to create systems that intervene in these types of situations before either the teacher or the student reaches the boiling point.
This story recently broke about a teacher who said some pretty harsh things to a 5 year-old in her kindergarten class. I won't copy the whole transcript but, in part, she said:
"I've been more than nice to you all year long and you've been ignorant, selfish, self-absorbed, the whole thing! I'm done! . . . Something needs to be done because you are pathetic! If me saying these words to you hurt, I hope it does because you're hurting everyone else around you."
Joanne Jacobs immediately pounced, writing, in part, "I don’t care how aggravating this boy was. He’s five years old."
Robert Pondiscio followed that up by highlighting one of the comments on Jacobs' blog that reads “I wonder how prevalent such abuse is; could this be more widespread than it looks?”
So, back to the plan for doing something stupid. I'm going to defend the teacher's actions. She may or may not deserve it, but I'll give it a stab anyway.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that it was okay for her to say these things. I thought berating students like this was over the top in my school -- and our kids were two to three times the age of this kid. She clearly shouldn't have said these things, and I'm assuming she realizes that as well.
That said, I'm also going to stick my neck out there and argue that what she did doesn't prove that she's the worst person in the world. To answer the question highlighted by Pondiscio, I firmly believe that such verbal abuse is more widespread than people realize. And not just in schools. I've heard worse things said by teachers, administrators, and parents (not to mention from students as well -- directed at both other students and at adults). I certainly said things that I now regret while teaching, and I know many others who have as well.
Granted, the fact that other people say things that are just as bad or worse doesn't excuse her actions (I can hear my Dad saying "If everybody else jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge does that mean that you would too?"), but it does lend some context. Why do people say things like this? That's the question that I'm not hearing asked.
In my case, and I'm guessing in others as well, one has to be pretty frustrated before they would say something like this. It takes a lot to make me frustrated enough to say something mean to somebody or yell and scream but trying to teach in my school was enough to do it. I can say with utmost confidence that trying to teach in my school was, far and away, the most frustrating thing I have ever tried to do. And discipline problems were, far and away, the most frustrating thing about trying to teach at my school.
Now, I have no idea what her school is like. Maybe her school is idyllic and she didn't like that he asked for strawberry milk even though she only has plain and chocolate. I'm not going to eliminate the possibility that she's simply a monster, but I'd say the odds are against it.
Anybody out there who's reading this and had kids, has taught kids, or has otherwise spent a great deal of time dealing with kids: have you ever snapped and lost your temper? Have you ever said anything you regretted? You probably realized that it was mean and counter-productive after the fact, but you can't go back and not say those things.
In the case of teachers, they snap . . . they lose their cool . . . they say things they shouldn't. And it's because they're human. Some do it more than others, some never do it, but it's something that I think we should confront. And I don't think vilifying teachers who happen to be caught on tape is going to solve the problem. Certainly what she said was over the line and her suspension is deserved, but let's not pretend that this is an isolated incident.
If we really want to prevent things like this from happening, we need to take a closer look at discipline issues. In my school, kids were out of control and teachers were expected to control them virtually single-handedly. If a teacher had a problem with a student, it was generally considered the teacher's fault. That's not an environment conducive to kindness and understanding on behalf of teachers. We have to realize that being a teacher can be frustrating and that discipline problems are a large source of frustration for many teachers. Personally, I think we should try to create systems that intervene in these types of situations before either the teacher or the student reaches the boiling point.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Updating A Couple Recent Items
1.) The NYC cell phone ban was mentioned in an article in the Spokesman-Review (Spokane) today, and I was given the job of explaining how the ban played out in NYC. My favorite quote from the article, however, is not one of mine -- it's a quote from a student that serves as the final sentence of the article: “A rule that says you can’t use your cell phone whatsoever – I can guarantee you students are going to break that rule.”
2.) Regarding charter schools and "exit doors," there was an interesting piece in the Boston Globe yesterday. The article describes the recent exodus of a number of seniors from the MATCH charter school. It's unclear exactly what happened, but it appears as though the students were afraid (or were told) that they wouldn't meet MATCH's graduation standards, so they transferred to Boston public schools right before the end of the year hoping to earn a diploma. That particular case is interesting, b/c I'm not sure that the charter school gains that much even if they advised the kids to leave (other than upholding their high standards, I guess). Mike Petrilli says that this is evidence that Boston's schools' have standards that are too low. Possibly. But it also might be evidence that some charter schools are dumping their most problematic students on local public schools. A few seniors wouldn't help them much in this regard, but the article says that the school has a 60% graduation rate -- meaning that a number of people must be leaving before senior year as well.
2.) Regarding charter schools and "exit doors," there was an interesting piece in the Boston Globe yesterday. The article describes the recent exodus of a number of seniors from the MATCH charter school. It's unclear exactly what happened, but it appears as though the students were afraid (or were told) that they wouldn't meet MATCH's graduation standards, so they transferred to Boston public schools right before the end of the year hoping to earn a diploma. That particular case is interesting, b/c I'm not sure that the charter school gains that much even if they advised the kids to leave (other than upholding their high standards, I guess). Mike Petrilli says that this is evidence that Boston's schools' have standards that are too low. Possibly. But it also might be evidence that some charter schools are dumping their most problematic students on local public schools. A few seniors wouldn't help them much in this regard, but the article says that the school has a 60% graduation rate -- meaning that a number of people must be leaving before senior year as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)