In my last entry, I discussed the unfortunate truth that students, parents, lawyers, and politicians have essentially decimated any chance for discipline (and therefore proper learning) in our schools. In this second submission about Taking Back Our Schools, I've focused on the school structure and how little change has actually occurred in the past 150 years.
Prior to the end of the Civil War, there were few formal schools in the South. The idea of the "Common" school adopted in the North East had not caught on. Once started, southern schools were basically modeled after those in the North East. This fundamental structure of public education exists still today.
Now much larger in scope than 19th century schools, the basic premise of public funding, local school boards, school district administration, school administration, and teachers, remains intact. Unfortunately, while within the rest of the industrialized United States, immense progress has been made, our schools are still operated in the same hammer and chisel manner as existed 150 years ago. And the system continues to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
In my opinion, "inbreeding" is one of the greater mistakes made within the system. Simply stated, this means that in order to move up in the system, you must be part of the system. Therefore, someone must first be a teacher before they can become a vice principal (assistant principal), a vice principal before principal, or at the very least, must have a graduate degree in school administration before they become eligible for some district-level position. One may reasonably ask why this is so important. The answer is that inbreeding brings forth no new concepts, methods, or external insight. In short, teachers are taught one way of doing things by professors who have some background in education. To progress in the system, they are taught even more status quo information by others brought up in the same system. There are no "outside the box" contributions, because they are all within the box.
The next stumbling block comes in the form of "stagnation." Stagnation occurs when a person is promoted to their highest level of incompetence (The Peter Principle, paraphrased). This means that once a person is promoted to Principal or a district-level administrative position, they tend to stay there the remainder of their careers. How's that for creativity for and modification to the existing system?
Each district-level administrator MUST justify their reason for existence; therefore, they think up ways to generate data to show the Superintendent of Schools how well they're doing. They are often assisted by the Federal government who imposes some new program or requirement that dictates the need for data. The local district-level administrator issues an edict to school principals that this data must be reported to the district at least monthly, but sometimes it's each week.
The principals, who should act as barriers between teachers and nonsensical requests from district personnel, simply passes the latest burden on to the teachers, holding them accountable for gathering the data, getting it to the principal a day or two early, so the principal can ensure nothing negative leaves the building. After all, the principal is held accountable for getting the junk back to the district on time. This type of make-work only serves to further encumber teachers, causing them to have less time to teach, less time to devote to students having academic trouble, but more time after school and on weekends just to maintain some foothold on what they should be doing.
Were I king, principals would be mandated back into the classroom every five years, for one year. They wouldn't lose pay, but would be relegated to the level of teacher to reacquaint them with the pain of having to teach, gather data, deal with problem children, problem parents, inefficient programs, lack of supplies and equipment, etc. At the end of the year, the principal would receive an evaluation, just like other teachers. I would do something similar with district administrators. They should be made to feel and understand the impact of their flawed decisions.
Such an undertaking could be accomplished by transferring 20% of principals and administrators per year back to the classroom. At the end of five years the cycle would start again.
As always, I solicit your comments....
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Taking Back Our Schools pt 1
I’ve yet to meet a parent who wants their child to have a poor or neglected education. I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that I haven’t met one. Those with whom I have discussed it, invariably want their child to have a topnotch education.
These same parents are aghast when a student gains notoriety for some misbehavior or crime while at school. They even complain that our schools are out of control and say that something should be done to regain discipline……….unless it’s their child who causes the disruption or commits the crime.
The mindset of the parents then suddenly changes. They quickly begin looking for someone, other than their “angel,” on whom to place blame. The notion that their child should be required to accept full responsibility for his/her misconduct is forgotten, as the family circles the wagons of defense.
Interestingly, without regard as to the guilt of the child, the parents usually find it easy to get radio, TV, and newspaper coverage, since they portray another “school crisis” theme. If the misguided action of the child warrants potential expulsion or corporal punishment, the family can readily find an attorney willing to challenge the right of school officials to administer appropriate measures. As a result of the unwillingness of parents to allow their child to realize the consequences of his/her own actions our schools are faced with a form of chaos in which the students are in charge.
The students come to learn that regardless of what they may do (short of a violent crime requiring law enforcement intervention), they will be held harmless and there will be no consequences. Let’s take a look at a brief, but all too frequent, example.
An oppositional, defiant, and indifferent student, Dudley DoWrong, engages in disruptive behaviors on a daily basis. He has already decided by age 13 or 14 that school is boring, has no meaning, and so he wants out. He will do whatever is necessary to get out of school. So Dudley’s teachers are faced with the impossible task of teaching other students while Dudley DoWrong is in the classroom. The teacher’s only option is to “refer” Dudley to the principal’s office. Dudley complies with the trip to the office where he sits until the principal or vice principal can see him.
He is eventually seen by one of the school administrators who admonishes him to behave and to do the right thing. He is then sent back to the classroom where he again causes disruption. Logically, one would think that the trip to the front office would strike fear into the heart of DoWrong as it did with those of us from generations past. Not so!
Dudley is firmly ensconced in the revolving door, meaningless actions of school officials. In fact, he probably realizes that if his teacher sends him to the front office frequently, the teacher will be regarded as having poor “classroom management” skills.
I’ll shorten this episode and get to one of the points that need review in our public school systems. While public caning may not be appropriate for school misconduct, shame certainly is appropriate. Shame works because it first of all makes Dudley DoWrong face the consequences of his actions. The secondary gain to be had from shaming a student for his/her misbehavior is that it places the parents under the microscope of public scrutiny. After all, they may not know how to parent their child effectively and could benefit from parental education. Finally, it would give teachers and administrators a bona fide means of curbing Dudley’s behavior (unless he is bent on getting expelled).
For those of you who may be appalled at the idea that shaming is appropriate, for fear that it will damage little Dudley’s psyche…..balderdash! Most of the little Dudley’s aren’t getting instruction on appropriate social behaviors at home, because both parents work and are too tired to deal with it. The tendency is to ignore Dudley until some critical incident raises the need for parental involvement……then they circle the wagons of defense.
Some of you may wonder what forms of shame I’d advocate. Well, like the orange license plate some states require convicted drug/alcohol impaired (DUI/DWI) persons to display, some sort of sign hanging around the neck of the offender may work. One has to be careful when constructing the elements of shame used, lest they become a red badge of courage in the eyes of other students.
Another option could be conducted during school assemblies, where disobedient students are called to the front of the assembly to publically describe their misconduct. What student would want to face that again????
As always, I look forward to comments…….
These same parents are aghast when a student gains notoriety for some misbehavior or crime while at school. They even complain that our schools are out of control and say that something should be done to regain discipline……….unless it’s their child who causes the disruption or commits the crime.
The mindset of the parents then suddenly changes. They quickly begin looking for someone, other than their “angel,” on whom to place blame. The notion that their child should be required to accept full responsibility for his/her misconduct is forgotten, as the family circles the wagons of defense.
Interestingly, without regard as to the guilt of the child, the parents usually find it easy to get radio, TV, and newspaper coverage, since they portray another “school crisis” theme. If the misguided action of the child warrants potential expulsion or corporal punishment, the family can readily find an attorney willing to challenge the right of school officials to administer appropriate measures. As a result of the unwillingness of parents to allow their child to realize the consequences of his/her own actions our schools are faced with a form of chaos in which the students are in charge.
The students come to learn that regardless of what they may do (short of a violent crime requiring law enforcement intervention), they will be held harmless and there will be no consequences. Let’s take a look at a brief, but all too frequent, example.
An oppositional, defiant, and indifferent student, Dudley DoWrong, engages in disruptive behaviors on a daily basis. He has already decided by age 13 or 14 that school is boring, has no meaning, and so he wants out. He will do whatever is necessary to get out of school. So Dudley’s teachers are faced with the impossible task of teaching other students while Dudley DoWrong is in the classroom. The teacher’s only option is to “refer” Dudley to the principal’s office. Dudley complies with the trip to the office where he sits until the principal or vice principal can see him.
He is eventually seen by one of the school administrators who admonishes him to behave and to do the right thing. He is then sent back to the classroom where he again causes disruption. Logically, one would think that the trip to the front office would strike fear into the heart of DoWrong as it did with those of us from generations past. Not so!
Dudley is firmly ensconced in the revolving door, meaningless actions of school officials. In fact, he probably realizes that if his teacher sends him to the front office frequently, the teacher will be regarded as having poor “classroom management” skills.
I’ll shorten this episode and get to one of the points that need review in our public school systems. While public caning may not be appropriate for school misconduct, shame certainly is appropriate. Shame works because it first of all makes Dudley DoWrong face the consequences of his actions. The secondary gain to be had from shaming a student for his/her misbehavior is that it places the parents under the microscope of public scrutiny. After all, they may not know how to parent their child effectively and could benefit from parental education. Finally, it would give teachers and administrators a bona fide means of curbing Dudley’s behavior (unless he is bent on getting expelled).
For those of you who may be appalled at the idea that shaming is appropriate, for fear that it will damage little Dudley’s psyche…..balderdash! Most of the little Dudley’s aren’t getting instruction on appropriate social behaviors at home, because both parents work and are too tired to deal with it. The tendency is to ignore Dudley until some critical incident raises the need for parental involvement……then they circle the wagons of defense.
Some of you may wonder what forms of shame I’d advocate. Well, like the orange license plate some states require convicted drug/alcohol impaired (DUI/DWI) persons to display, some sort of sign hanging around the neck of the offender may work. One has to be careful when constructing the elements of shame used, lest they become a red badge of courage in the eyes of other students.
Another option could be conducted during school assemblies, where disobedient students are called to the front of the assembly to publically describe their misconduct. What student would want to face that again????
As always, I look forward to comments…….
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Poor Leadership Practice
I was recently made aware of a practice in corporate America and elsewhere that essentially destroys confidence in the leadership structure. The practice is telling people that they work on a team, that teamwork is what makes the company grow, and that team players help the team succeed.
The offending lie comes when it's time for your annual appraisal....you get an individual rating. Suddenly the team mantra is gone, cheerleading is done, and the team is set aside in favor of singling you out for a rating geared for only you.
The team concept is an admirable means of inspiring better performance, greater productivity, and a sense of spirit not found with individual members. If done the proper way, there is little an inspired team cannot accomplish. Individual effort is excellent, but is spread throughout the team, raising even mediocre performers to new heights.
When leaders choose to flaunt the lie in the face of the workers, it isn't long before team members realize that it's everyone for himself. Teamwork and team spirit gives way to grousing and complaining about who's doing what, for how long, and who has the hardest job. Left unattended the Team concept will live in name only, morale will decline, and the will to outshine other teams disintegrates. Workers feel betrayed after they've been told that teams make up the workforce and that teams make the company excel, only to discover that company leaders still want singular accountability.
The offending lie comes when it's time for your annual appraisal....you get an individual rating. Suddenly the team mantra is gone, cheerleading is done, and the team is set aside in favor of singling you out for a rating geared for only you.
The team concept is an admirable means of inspiring better performance, greater productivity, and a sense of spirit not found with individual members. If done the proper way, there is little an inspired team cannot accomplish. Individual effort is excellent, but is spread throughout the team, raising even mediocre performers to new heights.
When leaders choose to flaunt the lie in the face of the workers, it isn't long before team members realize that it's everyone for himself. Teamwork and team spirit gives way to grousing and complaining about who's doing what, for how long, and who has the hardest job. Left unattended the Team concept will live in name only, morale will decline, and the will to outshine other teams disintegrates. Workers feel betrayed after they've been told that teams make up the workforce and that teams make the company excel, only to discover that company leaders still want singular accountability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)