Three responses to the last two entries asked about the role that parents can play in transforming the bullying culture that prevails. Some comments at the end of the previous post addressed this briefly, but perhaps a more pointed response will provide some food for thought.
To combat some of the nameless, faceless, and overwhelming cyberbullying that takes place, parents should control and limit access. I am tired of hearing the excuse that students need personal cell phones to access the resources they need throughout daily life. Crap! If your son or daughter is at practice or an activity of one kind or another, his coach or advisor has access to a telephone. If your son or daughter is out in public, phones are ubiquitous - payphones, land lines in businesses, available adults with cell phones abound.
If your young son or daughter is somewhere that a phone is not accessible, you as the parent should be standing next to him or her. People younger than 16 do not need cellphones.
The fact of the matter is that our young people have access to phones, computers, blacberries and other electronic communications tools because having such access is easier on parents. Parenting, part of which involves monitoring your child's activities and whereabouts, is demanding. I maintain that parents can't protect their children from anything when they provide the youth with unsupervised access to all these toys.
Parents can also counteract the prevailing culture by having intelligent conversations with their children as young as age five or six. All interactions with people should subscribe to the patterns that comprise the rules or courtesy, civility, and propriety. This may sound more difficult than it is, since all such rules may be reduced to the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I also endorse one other controversial point of view. I taught my children the following rules of engagement when confronted by aggressive behavior. 1. Tell the other person to stop. 2. Run away, even if it makes you look bad. 3. If running away doesn't work, run to an adult that you can trust - teacher, parent, neighbor. Kids my tease, but you will be safe enough to devise the next plan. 4. If you cannot find an adult you trust, find any adult and ask for help.
The fifth rule is a big one, and I will endorse it, though I know many people will reject it. 5. If you are backed into a corner, or you think you are in danger that you cannot run from or avoid, hit the bully as hard and as often as you can, for as long as it takes to provide an avenue for escape.
In the 8th grade, my son was suspended for driving a pencil into the arm of his attacker. The bully had him pinned in a student desk, and after a full minute of telling the bully to get off of him, to no effect, he lashed out with the only weapon he had. I supported the suspension, but demanded to know why the teacher was not near enough to provide assistance. I forget the reason why, so it must have been a rare, but unfortunate case of divided attention brought on by another incident.
The bully never interacted with my son again.
At 10, my daughter kicked a neighbor boy in the groin to thwart an attack. She tried to get help from the neighbor boy's father, whom she said closed the curtains of the upstairs bedroom when he heard her cries for help. (He said he didn't hear her.)
Last year, that same daughter was trapped in a dormitory bathroom by a drunken visitor to the college. She didn't scream for help, though I don't know why. Instead, she told him he wasn't going to get her, and dashed through a small opening in the doorway that he must have thought he had completely blocked. She ran back to her room, locked the door, and phoned for help. He followed her to her room and tried to get in.
These incidents validate my belief that I have provided sadly appropriate advice.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Bully for Me
A long tenure in public schools provides me with the experience to make the following pronouncements and observations.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bully For You
I suspect that I really have two completely separate commentaries to deliver, but they are intricatley related to one another, so I have opted to post them one after the other.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
On the Precipe of Election Day...
Next Tuesday, many Americans will dash off, at one point of the day or another, and they will in many cases proudly exercise their right to vote. They will mistakenly and sadly believe adhere to the delusion that their individual votes count and matter.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Advice for Educators
I now commence upon an almost impossible task: to convince some teachers to change their view of what education looks like. The arduousness of the task is grounded in a simple truth: the message will not reach the intended target primarily because the target audience is disinclined to look for this advice. Their view of teaching is flawed, as it is built upon flawed thinkng from its inception.
Teaching students, from my stance, is an intimately personal task, especially when one considers that I have become convinced over more than a quarter century in education that teachers don't really teach students anything. I know, I am being somewhat obtuse.
My viewpoint is that even in a classroom with thirty students, the teacher is holding a conversation with each student individually. Teachers always teach individual students, never classes. The conventional structure is usually a classroom with desks, students, various presentational tools and materials, and a teacher. However, the simple dynamic, though inordinately complicated in its exercise, is for the teacher to lead the student to knowledge or skill. In short, the teacher wants the student to understand something, and to have the skill to use that something in a mutlitude of ways.
This viewpoint is in stark contrast to the perception of the education process that my target audience exhibits. They see themselves as purveyors of knowledge, rahter than coaches and cultivators of talent. Consequently, their expectations are that students will acquire the necessary skills and knowledge because of an intrinsic appreciation for what the teacher has to offer.
The problem is simply that teaching is tough, regardless of the clientele, and the education of prepubescents and adolescents is even more difficult.
The complexity of the task of teaching is created by the scope of factors that influence the teacher's ability to lead students to the understanding and faciiity that is the objective of the lesson. The teacher has strengths and weaknesses, as do the students. The students have an immeasurable range of prior knowledge and understanding - or dearth thereof - as well as a full spectrum of aptitudes, prejudices, values, and ethics.
Additionally, students are subject to myriad external forces, many of which serve as impediments to learning. Among these are developmental issues including intellectual capacity, psychological readiness, and emotional stability and maturity.
Considering all of these things, one may think it a wonder that anyone ever learns anything at all. Yet learning is a natural occupation for all humans, and this fact is the most crusial tool that the teacher has at his disposal. Left to his own devices, every human is in a continual state of self-eduation; the problem is often that the student is engaged in learning things that are not included in the district curriculum. So the quesiton really becomes, "how do we get the students to learn what we think they need to learn, even when they are stridently averse or apathetic to learning it?"
An anecdote, certifiably true, and recently witnessed, may help to illustrate. A recalcitrant student in a fairly undemanding math class approaches the assistant principal to complain about his math teacher. The teacher, he contends, yells at him especially, and at the class as a whole, with great regularity. Considering the composition of the class, the assistant principal can imagine why the teacher is often inspired to yell: the students are disruptive, resistant to authority, disinterested in learning, and often surly to boot. When they aren't surly, they generally compensate by being apathetic or sleepy.
The student complains about one feature in particular. At the end of the class, the teacher often asks students to start their homework. She then uses this time to invite students who haven't grasped the day's objectives to come to her desk for individual help. When this student asks for help, he claims the teacher yells at him and tells him to sit down.
The assistant principal engages the teacher in conversation at his next opportunity. He acknowledges the difficulites that a teacher might have with this particular student, but expresses concern that she has sent the message that he is not eligible for help at the end of a lesson. "If they haven't taken notes, or if they haven't tried the whole period, I spend the time on students who are trying their best." she says. {I am paraphrasing here.]
The assistant principal says he understands, and advises the teacher to be certain that all of her students are given help when they request it. He acknowledges the inclination to make the student earn the support, but reminds the teacher that she is the one who invited students to the tutoring session. In short, if she is going to continue the practice of offering individual help to students who asks for it, she should make all of her students eligible for the help.
The teacher leaves, unhappy, as she feels that this student will abuse the privilege and prevent other needy students from accessing extra support.
What the assistant principal wants to say is this: "These annoying, beliggerent, lazy, and unresponsive students are exactly the people who will earn this school an unsatisfactory grade when the state assessments are given in the spring." In fact, this particular student is a junior, a member of the grade that will be assessed this year. He also wants to say, "Stop taking student behavior personally. Your job is to teach math, and to help all of your students to progress to an acceptable level. The state doesn't care about this student's personality. The state reports only his score, not his personality profile."
Having been in the trenches for twenty-three years, I know the challenges of undisciplined, defiant students. I also know that the real challenge of the teacher is to rise above the urge to let the troublesome student win. Students like the one described above aren't stupid; they are unaccomplished. The teacher should take it as a challenge to advance these students especially. Even the most mediocre teacher can help the motivated, engaged, and committed pupil. The excellent teacher teaches all of his/her students.
Perhaps this little nugget of wisdon might be of some value. I was told early in my career to always start out tough and strict, with the suggestion that I could always back off later. After all, the wisdom went, the students didn't have to like me; they just had to respect me.
I think that advice is foolish and wrong-headed, and I am glad I never listened. The expectations for behavior should be the same at the end as they are at the beginning. Those expectations should be few, simple, and consistently enforced. Furthermore, students who like their teachers work harder for them. Why in the world would teachers not want students to like them?
One warning: teachers should not make concessions or provide allowances so that students like them. None of the classroom management procedures should be implemented solely to promote high regard for the teacher. Instead, the teacher should be admired, respected, and highly regarded because his attitude is predicated on respect for the students. The rules of the classroom, intended to create the most user-friendly environemnt, and enforced with consistency and care, will promote the best in the teacher-student relationahip.
So the target audience for this piece will say, "So you are telling me that hard work isn't a requirement? You are saying that students who are lazy and disengaged during the lesson should be able to commandeer valuable time for personal assistance when industrious students will be made to wait in line?"
My answer is "No," and "Yes." Hard work allows most students to learn the lesson the first time, and few of them will be clamoring for help at the end of the period. Therefore, the teacher is still encouraging and reinforcing hard work. Secondly, the student who hasn't grasped the lesson, even if it's his own fault, still needs to grasp the lesson. Most of these students won't ask for help regardless. When one does, the teacher should take it as the greatest of opportunities.
The best thing that can happen is that the student will learn something, be encouraged to do the homework, and show up to class the next day with a better attitude. The worst thing that can happen is that one or two hard-working, but needy, students will be denied individual help. Truthfully, this happens to industrious students every day, and because they are industrious, they access help from friends, parents, tutors, and other services.
Again, quite simply, teaching a lesson to a student who may not otherwise learn it is more important than the secondary concerns.
Many teachers already know these things. The ones who don't have already stopped reading, and have constructed specious arguments to obviate their need to make an attitude shift.
Nevertheless, I needed to say what I have said.
Teaching students, from my stance, is an intimately personal task, especially when one considers that I have become convinced over more than a quarter century in education that teachers don't really teach students anything. I know, I am being somewhat obtuse.
My viewpoint is that even in a classroom with thirty students, the teacher is holding a conversation with each student individually. Teachers always teach individual students, never classes. The conventional structure is usually a classroom with desks, students, various presentational tools and materials, and a teacher. However, the simple dynamic, though inordinately complicated in its exercise, is for the teacher to lead the student to knowledge or skill. In short, the teacher wants the student to understand something, and to have the skill to use that something in a mutlitude of ways.
This viewpoint is in stark contrast to the perception of the education process that my target audience exhibits. They see themselves as purveyors of knowledge, rahter than coaches and cultivators of talent. Consequently, their expectations are that students will acquire the necessary skills and knowledge because of an intrinsic appreciation for what the teacher has to offer.
The problem is simply that teaching is tough, regardless of the clientele, and the education of prepubescents and adolescents is even more difficult.
The complexity of the task of teaching is created by the scope of factors that influence the teacher's ability to lead students to the understanding and faciiity that is the objective of the lesson. The teacher has strengths and weaknesses, as do the students. The students have an immeasurable range of prior knowledge and understanding - or dearth thereof - as well as a full spectrum of aptitudes, prejudices, values, and ethics.
Additionally, students are subject to myriad external forces, many of which serve as impediments to learning. Among these are developmental issues including intellectual capacity, psychological readiness, and emotional stability and maturity.
Considering all of these things, one may think it a wonder that anyone ever learns anything at all. Yet learning is a natural occupation for all humans, and this fact is the most crusial tool that the teacher has at his disposal. Left to his own devices, every human is in a continual state of self-eduation; the problem is often that the student is engaged in learning things that are not included in the district curriculum. So the quesiton really becomes, "how do we get the students to learn what we think they need to learn, even when they are stridently averse or apathetic to learning it?"
An anecdote, certifiably true, and recently witnessed, may help to illustrate. A recalcitrant student in a fairly undemanding math class approaches the assistant principal to complain about his math teacher. The teacher, he contends, yells at him especially, and at the class as a whole, with great regularity. Considering the composition of the class, the assistant principal can imagine why the teacher is often inspired to yell: the students are disruptive, resistant to authority, disinterested in learning, and often surly to boot. When they aren't surly, they generally compensate by being apathetic or sleepy.
The student complains about one feature in particular. At the end of the class, the teacher often asks students to start their homework. She then uses this time to invite students who haven't grasped the day's objectives to come to her desk for individual help. When this student asks for help, he claims the teacher yells at him and tells him to sit down.
The assistant principal engages the teacher in conversation at his next opportunity. He acknowledges the difficulites that a teacher might have with this particular student, but expresses concern that she has sent the message that he is not eligible for help at the end of a lesson. "If they haven't taken notes, or if they haven't tried the whole period, I spend the time on students who are trying their best." she says. {I am paraphrasing here.]
The assistant principal says he understands, and advises the teacher to be certain that all of her students are given help when they request it. He acknowledges the inclination to make the student earn the support, but reminds the teacher that she is the one who invited students to the tutoring session. In short, if she is going to continue the practice of offering individual help to students who asks for it, she should make all of her students eligible for the help.
The teacher leaves, unhappy, as she feels that this student will abuse the privilege and prevent other needy students from accessing extra support.
What the assistant principal wants to say is this: "These annoying, beliggerent, lazy, and unresponsive students are exactly the people who will earn this school an unsatisfactory grade when the state assessments are given in the spring." In fact, this particular student is a junior, a member of the grade that will be assessed this year. He also wants to say, "Stop taking student behavior personally. Your job is to teach math, and to help all of your students to progress to an acceptable level. The state doesn't care about this student's personality. The state reports only his score, not his personality profile."
Having been in the trenches for twenty-three years, I know the challenges of undisciplined, defiant students. I also know that the real challenge of the teacher is to rise above the urge to let the troublesome student win. Students like the one described above aren't stupid; they are unaccomplished. The teacher should take it as a challenge to advance these students especially. Even the most mediocre teacher can help the motivated, engaged, and committed pupil. The excellent teacher teaches all of his/her students.
Perhaps this little nugget of wisdon might be of some value. I was told early in my career to always start out tough and strict, with the suggestion that I could always back off later. After all, the wisdom went, the students didn't have to like me; they just had to respect me.
I think that advice is foolish and wrong-headed, and I am glad I never listened. The expectations for behavior should be the same at the end as they are at the beginning. Those expectations should be few, simple, and consistently enforced. Furthermore, students who like their teachers work harder for them. Why in the world would teachers not want students to like them?
One warning: teachers should not make concessions or provide allowances so that students like them. None of the classroom management procedures should be implemented solely to promote high regard for the teacher. Instead, the teacher should be admired, respected, and highly regarded because his attitude is predicated on respect for the students. The rules of the classroom, intended to create the most user-friendly environemnt, and enforced with consistency and care, will promote the best in the teacher-student relationahip.
So the target audience for this piece will say, "So you are telling me that hard work isn't a requirement? You are saying that students who are lazy and disengaged during the lesson should be able to commandeer valuable time for personal assistance when industrious students will be made to wait in line?"
My answer is "No," and "Yes." Hard work allows most students to learn the lesson the first time, and few of them will be clamoring for help at the end of the period. Therefore, the teacher is still encouraging and reinforcing hard work. Secondly, the student who hasn't grasped the lesson, even if it's his own fault, still needs to grasp the lesson. Most of these students won't ask for help regardless. When one does, the teacher should take it as the greatest of opportunities.
The best thing that can happen is that the student will learn something, be encouraged to do the homework, and show up to class the next day with a better attitude. The worst thing that can happen is that one or two hard-working, but needy, students will be denied individual help. Truthfully, this happens to industrious students every day, and because they are industrious, they access help from friends, parents, tutors, and other services.
Again, quite simply, teaching a lesson to a student who may not otherwise learn it is more important than the secondary concerns.
Many teachers already know these things. The ones who don't have already stopped reading, and have constructed specious arguments to obviate their need to make an attitude shift.
Nevertheless, I needed to say what I have said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)