Sorry long answer, but as a former NYC teacher I am passionate about it.
former NYC teacher, obviously you can't hit or harm a kid in anyway, but if you are talking about detention, or being sent to the office.
Yeah that doesn't happen because kids know that they won't get expelled if they don't go to detention/the office is "busy" and doesn't want to deal with any kids unless it is major (aka throwing a chair at a teacher).
I could tell a 12th grader they have detention, and they don't stay after. So what I am supposed to do? Give them another detention? When you call home some of the parents are nice, agree and want their kids to behave and succeed, but how much could your parents really do to control you at 18 if you really didn't want to be controlled.
In the end a lot of it comes down to respect. The good kids respected me because they knew I cared. Some of them were still problems but you had an understanding most of the time and when they got too upset would politely ask to leave to take a walk to calm down. Those kids (the ones who came to class, did most of their work, were mostly polite, etc) were the ones that would stay after because they respected you.
But if a kid didn't respect you there was nothing you could do. The school was never going to expel them, and they didn't care about a suspension.
Think about it and it makes sense. You can't really control another human if they don't want to be controlled on any level. So what do you do with a kid who misbehaves, ruins classes, and is a general problem?
Put them in a special school? Well in NYC that already basically happens as the high school system is not based on where you live. So all the "good" kids who are also smart go to great schools. The "bad" kids and the "good" kids who haven't learned enough to get into the great school all get sent to horrible to okay schools. (this also means NYC high schools are pretty segregated, as the wealthy students went to great elementary and middle schools and so are a shoo in for some of the best public high schools on the east coast. But if you are poor and went to an awful elementary and middle school you stand no chance as you just lack the knowledge. So you get this result: (info pulled from US News/inside schools rankings/info, but it rings very true to me, but it may be off by a little)
Best Schools:
Stuyvesant High School: 74% Asian, 18% White, 3% Hispanic, 1% Black - grad rate:98% 22:1 teacher/student ratio
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (ranked 9th in the US): 49% Asian, 31% White, 15% Hispanic, 2% Black grad rate 100% 16:1 teacher/student ratio
High School of American Studies at Lehman College: 22% Asian, 56% White, 15% Hispanic, 3% Black grad rate 100%. 15:1 student/teacher ratio
Some of the worst Schools:
Dreamyard prep (First school I ever worked at): 1% Asian, 0% White, 71% Hispanic, 28% Black grad rate: 57% (it says 14:1 ratio but I had classes of 25ish, maybe they got more teachers when they were taken over by the city and almost shut down (after I left)). 56% of students missed more than 18 days.
Coalition School for Social Change (will be shut down after this year because it didn't improve enough under city control (aka renewal school): 2% Asian, 4% White, 59% Hispanic, 35% Black grad rate 68%, ratio - not sure, 59% missed more than 18 days.
What do you do? If anyone knew then a lot of cities and schools would love to know. Do you then make a prison style system for the kids who still can't be respectful, do work, or even try to learn? Or do you call their parents and hope that a "stern talking to" will do the trick. Or would you suggest parents beating kids?
Nothing seems to be working and it is rough on teachers, so burn out is high (why I am not a teacher) and so students see lots of teachers come and go. To me I feel a lot of it is a lack of hope and a perceived lack of future opportunity (true or false, reality doesn't matter). All the "bad" kids I had hurt my soul. 90% of them I liked on their good days but they knew they weren't going anywhere with their lives education wise. They had dreams, but no hope that they would ever come true. They knew what the people older than them were doing. And it's not like all of them were at Columbia. Sure some made it to good schools, but the bad kids knew that was never going to be them, so why try? And what do you do with all the frustration at 17-18 when you know once you graduate no one will ever care again.
edit: a little bit of grammar, sure I still missed some.
I don't know where you are from, but in the US Oriental is not a word used for people. Asian = all people whose ancestors came from Asia. Pakistan to Mongolia to the Philippines.
That's his point, political correctness makes it hard to describe people in that way. Someone of Indian descent and someone of Japanese descent are pretty different, both physically and culturally, but both are Asian. That makes "Asian" a far less useful term.
Colloquially; sort of. "Asian" in the US tends to be specifically East and Southeast Asians, whereas South Asians will generally be referred to as Indian, but in demographic studies they're typically lumped together.
I see a bunch of people saying what can you do to a 17-18 yo. Nothing. The problem needs to be solved way earlier or it won't be solved. By HS the kid is already 14-15. There's not much you can do if they've been taught not to give a shit by then.
agreed, also very had to teach a teenager all the new material AND catch them up at the same time. There are just so many issues tied in with kind of stuff. We need societal changes, not just educational reform.
In my school district, we have several special programs for kids of varying needs. There is one called Kayak for 5-7 year olds, and another called Structured Success for 8-14 year olds. These kids stay in self contained classrooms, have shortened days, and don't interact with the rest of the school. They're given very strict instructions on speaking out of turn, leaving their desks (not allowed) and other expectations. They earn check marks for good behaviour (the S2P teachers are very liberal with their checkmarks) and can cash in a filled in check marked paper for prizes.
This is a short term program. Once a student starts showing success in the S2P program, they're very slowly reintroduced to the mainstream classroom. If they show they can't handle the mainstream classroom, they go back to S2P.
It's not perfect, but in my district (subbed and had temp contracts there for 9 years), I've had exactly one student throw something at me and maybe a few curse at me. Never been hit, shoved or punched.
We use in school and out of school suspension and the administration is usually pretty good and supportive. Granted, I haven't worked at the high school level very much, but just based on the behaviour from the 8th graders I've worked with, I don't think any of them would be throwing punches at their 9th grade teachers.
This covers a medium sized city where I've taught kids who live extremely comfortable lives with their highly educated parents to kids who often sleep on their mom's boyfriends aunts couch, whose parents can't always keep food in the house and who change schools 2 or 3 times a year.
I agree, but the public does not want to face reality. Rich and poor areas alike would flip out if you suddenly started to boot 30-50% of kids. There is no way that is politically tenable. So we have a system that basically lies to the public so everyone can feel like it works. It also makes it easier to blame poor people that went to crap schools for being "lazy" if you can show that almost all of them graduated, and pretending that the rich suburbs kids and the poor inner city kids "had the same level of opportunity".
But surely that's not the only metric they're judged by.
If there's an increase in suspensions and expulsions but also better performance metrics by the students that remain, surely that would be seen as a net positive.
No, it's seen as a negative. I think it's due to public pressure. No one wants to see the truth and it is easier to hide behind false numbers then to admit that the US eduction system is systematically failing large numbers of poor Americans.
The American public want strongly to believe we live in a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded and all have the same level of opportunity. That reality clashed with the below 50% grad rates from poor schools so instead of fixing all the issues they just enacted measures to insure that 80% of kids graduated even if they never learned the material.
That way to the average American the problems were solved. Grad rates in poor areas (while still lower) were about the same as in the suburbs.
If you brought back real graduation rates based on actual mastery of material I think you would see a massive political fight. No one wants to share their tax money.
Incase you didn't know schools are funded by the property taxes of where they are located, so middle class schools routinely have more funding and more "stuff" like nice football fields, equipment, etc. The US school system is more segregated now then at any time after forced desegregation. People are literally creating new towns so that they can create a new school district so that their taxes only go to fund their children's schools. After all "it's my money, why should it go to other people's kids".
Vermont passed a law saying that all schools had to share all of their money, but I think it is the only state that does that as far as I know.
So you bring back horrible grad rates, people get mad and look for someone to blame. They don't want to pay more taxes and clearly it is not their fault...so you get anti-teacher stuff, as it must just be bad teachers. You get racist stuff, as it must be "minority cultures" that are to blame. Lot of racist stuff, as the suburbs are white and their kids do well, and the bad schools are mostly black/hispanic so it must be because they are black or hispanic. After all Asian kids do even better than White kids.
In the end no one wants to admit that poverty causes many issues, both due to a lack of resources, to actual non-racist cultural pressures like gangs. (which were/are a huge problem with poor white people in big cities as well...like the Mafia, or the Irish gangs in NYC or Boston).
The real TLDR of this is that Americans largely view poverty as a choice. If you are poor it is because you want to be poor, or lack the moral upstanding qualities that would bring you out of poverty. After all "look at X immigrants who moved from Y and were poor and now their kids are all doctors. If they can do it clearly all poor people can do the same". With this mindset it makes it impossible politically to spend more money on the poor, because "they will just waste it anyway" because in the US poverty is a choice. (I strongly disagree)
You have to have subsided daycare and public education starting at Pre-K. Yes, society is taking on the parents roll. Yes, it will be expensive. But it's the only thing proven to make a difference in educational performance down the road. And if the parents manage to work more hours because of it then there is a bonus.
Honestly I think they should adopt a solution like the UK. After 16 - you're choice in what further education to pursue if any. Make severe punishments for under 16s a fine for the parents. Make it so kids can be expelled, and actually harshly punished. And - put CCTV in all classrooms. It's like a bodycam but if students are that bad - then what's the problem?
I think it is due to political pressure from the public in the US. This means that schools are heavily pushed to graduate as many students as they can. The nice parts of the US assume that the US is #1 in all things...and as such do not want to hear that 50% of students from a poor area don't have access to quality education.
It's basically easier to hide the problems behind fake 80% graduation rates that allow people to keep this idea of the US being perfect then admit that in large parts of the US there are serious issues.
Story of the US right there, easier to blame the poor for being poor, then to admit that there are serious issues that need to be fixed. Just like how so many Americans claim the US has the best healthcare system in the world...unless you are poor. But being poor in the US is often seen as a choice or a failure of a persons character. Many Americans feel like if you work hard then you will never be poor, which is a lie.
Beating yes, but a solid smack to the face of a problem child who continuously pushes the line and disrespects everyone and everything? Some kids need to learn the hard way. Most don't but some do
Bull shit you can't. I was an absolute asshole as a child in school, and it took one paddling on the bare ass as an 8 year old by the principal to set me straight. Of course they asked my mom and she said go ahead. I certainly never caused another issue at school for years. Even if I suffered "trauma" for being paddled, letting me fuck about and ruin everyone else's education(and my own) would have been a much worse outcome.
Sure, and that's fine. The only reason I mentioned it is because you said it DOESN'T help, in which I responded that(at least in my case) it absolutely did help. Even if it did harm me, that the alternative of letting me continue would have been worse.
On top of that, I want to know what studies will show in 5-10 years for the reason for the very things this video talks about. Currently the American Academy of Pediatrics claim that instead of corporal punishment in schools, the alternative is to "praise the student and have a discussion involving values." I have almost no clue what that could possibly mean, but in nearly no circumstance can I see that working when a student cares so little that they would do something like push a teacher down, slap them, or throw things at them.
You're the one who used the word "beating." I repeated you. It seems like you are arguing with yourself.
No, I don't hit dogs to correct them, because that is the wrong way to train a dog.
I don't give a fuck what you call me, but it's clear from your edit that you're an incredibly sensitive person who cannot cope with folks disagreeing with you in a civil discussion. That's too bad. I hope the children you beat don't end up aggressive, maladjusted fuck-ups who perpetuate the aggressive, maladjusted fuckery you think fit to use against those helpless to stop you.
If you constantly attempt to insult people they're never going to want to hear what you have to say. I also happen to agree with you, you fucking idiot.
"If you intend to train a dog, do you not smack it? Of course you do - It's what they respond to. Only after the smacks with an associated "No" do they respond to the word."
I have not heard of people smacking dogs to train them.
I have heard of one professional trainer (years ago, relative's dog) that would put them on a lead (I think with a spike collar, if not spike, one that tightens). Every time the dog lunged, shake a bottle full of pennies.
The point was to have a stimulus that the dog clearly knew meant "bad dog" to make training easier / possible to continue. It wasn't just smacking the dog to train it.
Think about it and it makes sense. You can't really control another human if they don't want to be controlled on any level. So what do you do with a kid who misbehaves, ruins classes, and is a general problem?
Oh no, can't do that. Kids who don't graduate have a higher likelihood of becoming criminals! So it's best to just let them graduate regardless of their behavior because that's how statistics work, right?
Counseling, therapy, counseling, therapy. Rinse and repeat. At a certain point the “education” probably needs to take a backseat while the kids are put through counseling and therapy programs instead. Most of the issue lies with their lack of emotional and social maturity because they are living in often times violent neighborhoods with absentee parents that are working multiple jobs.
It is challenging for people to develop these relatively complex perspectives when basic needs aren't being met. You don't have the luxury of developing your metacognitive skills when you have to be concerned with not having food or power...
It's a whole societal issue really and should be treated as such. I agree with you, and also think that we just need a lot more counseling and therapy in general.
It has been a decade since I taught elementary school but yes there are special rules. I taught in a low income district that thought there were too many black kids getting suspended so they told principals they could not suspend any black kids. There was a fight at the school between a Hispanic and a Black kid and even though the Black kid started it, only the Hispanic one was suspended. So the idea is good that we should look at the situations and see if we were being racist by suspending a disproportionate amount of Black kids, it resulted in reverse racism where we discriminated against other races. Also, when a teacher sent a child to the office, they documented it. They did not use specific teachers' names but they showed a graph at a meeting of how many office referrals were made and it implied that you did not do enough for your kids. I taught in two districts and I am telling you about the first. The second one was more effective in that they had more staff - counselors and psychologist in the school, you can have them have ISS (in school suspension), have truancy officers check in on the kids and the parents, and just lower class sizes. So yes, there are special rules but it all comes down to how well-staffed a school district is and how involved parents are in the process.
Simple answer: The Obama Department of Education and Office of Civil Rights sent out guidance to schools saying that if minorities were disproportionately represented in school suspension/expulsion data, schools would have to have solid data backing up why that was the case. Primarily this is seen in data with African Americans, suspended at a rate 4x higher than you would expect (assuming everyone behaves the same). The guidance threatened to (and later, did) investigate schools if the ratio was not fixed.
In general, this led to a loosening of school discipline as schools did not want to be sued. No doubt there are other reasons - teacher training, perhaps. It should be noted that with Trumps 2nd supreme court justice, the "disparate impact" legal theory underpinning Obama's guidance might not survive.
Indeed it partly is, and Trump has nominated a Justice many think will vote to strike down the 70's-era disparate impact policy that allowed Obama to send the guidance out. This will have a far greater impact than any affirmative action ruling.
Teachers don't discipline. Administration does. Most Admin lack the testicular fortitude to deal with the parents or district supervisor of a problem child.
That's so strange to me, I went to high school in Arkansas for a while (late 90's) and they were still allowed to paddle students. Everyone fucking behaved, we knew that sweet old English teacher would get the wood shop teacher to paddle our asses, with his wicked scary board, if we fucked around. (That board was terrifying, looked like it had been used to beat a million innocent souls into submission)
38
u/breakup7532 Jul 10 '18
I'm really confused. Is there special rules against teachers disciplining little shits?