Teacher blasts popular classroom training program: It is turning us into robots.

[Tanaqui]

What is described is terrifying, though I don't know how "popular" it actually is.

 

There's a little more information here (it's safe to read the comments). I just woke up, I'll reply to myself with my thoughts and comments later.

[mom2att]

That is completely and utterly appalling. Why even have a teacher? Based on the demographic of the kids, I'd venture to say they need MORE joy, MORE excitement, MORE personal attention than the average student. To speak everything in a monotone at the instruction of those who don't even know the students? That goes against everything I am as a teacher.

 

I can't believe the school district paid good money for this "training." Sounds like the net result was the loss of some really good teachers, and a bunch of kids who saw right through the facade.

[Harriet Vane]

Appalling. 

 

And a terrific waste of money and manpower.

[Mimm]

I'm stunned. This sounds like something out of a weird dystopian novel. Who in the world thought that children should be instructed like that? How did they convince other people of this idea? :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

[Butter]

I'm stunned. This sounds like something out of a weird dystopian novel. Who in the world thought that children should be instructed like that? How did they convince other people of this idea? :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

 

I kept thinking "precision of language!" a la The Giver.

[Matryoshka]

:eek: :eek: :eek:  What the what???

 

Almost makes me want to go figure out how to start a charter school over there for kids to escape to. I could use a project since all my kids are now in school! And I'm bilingual.  This city is only half an hour from me (and directly adjoined by one of the best school districts in the state - wow, segregation).

[Chrysalis Academy]

I'm stunned. This sounds like something out of a weird dystopian novel. Who in the world thought that children should be instructed like that? How did they convince other people of this idea? :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

 

My thoughts exactly. I kept looking for The Onion's logo or something. Are we sure this isn't social satire? Hope springs eternal.

[Farrar]

Whoa.

 

I never encountered anything this bad when I was teaching, but I was subjected to a number of teacher trainings that used dystopian style doublespeak. Like, for example, "You believe in less testing. You'll use that philosophy to help kids on the test." What the what the?

 

In general, there is a movement in education to devalue teachers. And a movement to try and turn teachers into script monkeys. I've never read about anything this extreme, but there have been reports for years about programs where teachers are penalized for customizing content for a class. And it's such a vicious cycle too - the more we treat teachers like this, the more they act like it, the dumber and less intelligent they get in their responses, and the more that intelligent people are driven away from the profession.

 

The only way to make education quality is to get teachers who are true professionals and treat them that way. But instead we're spending all our time trying to make teachers a cheaper commodity and change their curricula and technology and so forth. Wasted efforts.

[Guest]

This is why I do not believe that low income families are always better off putting their children in public school than homeschooling with whatever resources are available to them.

 

 

[Mimm]

This is why I do not believe that low income families are always better off putting their children in public school than homeschooling with whatever resources are available to them.

 

This is interesting because when thinking of whether a low income family should homeschool, I usually consider the education and resources available to the mother, and not the alternative of the horrible and sometimes dangerous schools the kids must attend. Seems like a choice between bad and worse.

[Guest]

 

This is interesting because when thinking of whether a low income family should homeschool, I usually consider the education and resources available to the mother, and not the alternative of the horrible and sometimes dangerous schools the kids must attend. Seems like a choice between bad and worse.

If you have time, you might want to read this comment from the second link in Tanaqui's original post:

 

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/28/laura-h-chapman-analyzes-no-nonsense-nurture/comment-page-1/#comment-2345193

[Tanaqui]

 

If you have time, you might want to read this comment from the second link in Tanaqui's original post:

 

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/28/laura-h-chapman-analyzes-no-nonsense-nurture/comment-page-1/#comment-2345193

 

For context, the selective high schools in NYC* determine admission by the use of a common test, the SSHSAT. There are special prep courses for this class (including at least one run by the DoE), there are test preparation books... it's a whole thing.

 

There is debate over whether or not they should use other criteria to determine admissions in addition to or instead of the test, certainly the demographics of those schools do not in any way match the demographics of the city, so it is often alleged that the tests are racist or otherwise problematic. We can argue all day over whether or not this is the case, but one thing we can be certain of is that the aforementioned charters are not preparing their kids to pass that test.

 

* Excluding LaGuardia, which requires an audition or submission of a portfolio, and Hunter, which starts in the 7th grade and requires a different test. Some people consider those schools specialized high schools as well, although the term is more normally not applied to them. Let's just say that the high school admission process in NYC is insane and leave it at that.

[Farrar]

Oh gosh, I just looked at the second post. This program was apparently used at the middle school we used to be zoned for. Parents here had a serious freak out when they had to do the rezoning last year... because they wanted to stay in that middle school. It's known as "the best" in the city. I know more than one family who are on the wait list for out of boundary. And families that switched there from charters they otherwise love because they don't want to lose their slots now that the rezoning has come down (it feeds to another school).

 

Groan. Groan. Groan. THIS is why I can't take it seriously when people talk about this school or that school being so good. The "good" schools are not always so good by the things that really matter to me.

[LucyStoner]

Whoa.

 

I never encountered anything this bad when I was teaching, but I was subjected to a number of teacher trainings that used dystopian style doublespeak. Like, for example, "You believe in less testing. You'll use that philosophy to help kids on the test." What the what the?

 

In general, there is a movement in education to devalue teachers. And a movement to try and turn teachers into script monkeys. I've never read about anything this extreme, but there have been reports for years about programs where teachers are penalized for customizing content for a class. And it's such a vicious cycle too - the more we treat teachers like this, the more they act like it, the dumber and less intelligent they get in their responses, and the more that intelligent people are driven away from the profession.

 

The only way to make education quality is to get teachers who are true professionals and treat them that way. But instead we're spending all our time trying to make teachers a cheaper commodity and change their curricula and technology and so forth. Wasted efforts.

Companies with high dollar lobbyists can sell and profit from the latest gizmos, tests, gadgets and trademarked methods. They can't profit from elevating the teaching profession with solid salaries used to hire and retain only the cream of the crop of new graduates. There's no built in profit motive for teaching. There is in selling districts crap they have to upgrade and replace every 1-3 years. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just see the basic economics at play here. There's a reason only 2 of my high school and college peers (I am 35) who went into teaching are still in education and only 1 is still in the classroom.

[Farrar]

Companies with high dollar lobbyists can sell and profit from the latest gizmos, tests, gadgets and trademarked methods. They can't profit from elevating the teaching profession with solid salaries used to hire and retain only the cream of the crop of new graduates. There's no built in profit motive for teaching. There is in selling districts crap they have to upgrade and replace every 1-3 years. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just see the basic economics at play here. There's a reason only 2 of my high school and college peers (I am 35) who went into teaching are still in education and only 1 is still in the classroom.

 

Absolutely. The American "way" is to look for market-based solutions and I'm not always against that, but when you apply this stuff to education, you get testing companies that write the test and the text, which is a conflict of interest unless you're looking for profit. I see it across the board in education and it does make one sound like a raving conspiracy theorist, but it's just true.

 

The craziest part of this whole thing is that the "market based solutions" and "eliminate the teacher" mindset has so deeply entered the ethos that these schools have dropped a ton more money on this stuff than they would need to in order to just improve teacher quality. Pay the teachers more, make it a real profession with professional licensing much more akin to doctors (long term paid internships instead of very brief ones, and extensive quality testing in specific subject areas), and stop investing in technology that you can't keep up with, consultants that rob you blind with nonsense like this, and premium priced texts that have to be replaced every couple of years.

[nansk]

"Constant narration of what the students are doing"?! If I were a student in this classroom, I would be so distracted, I would end up learning nothing. It feels like it would be mild mental harassment.

[Slache]

I used to groom dogs and this is how we treated the bad ones. If a dog was known for aggression you took charge of it with your tone and body language. Children are not aggressive dogs. This is completely inappropriate and disrespectful to the children as people.

[Alessandra]

The school described does not look like a regular public school, but a public charter school, according to what I could find out. I was suspicious as soon as I saw the KIPP reference.

 

Turning public schools into charter schools is happening all over the country, especially in poorer areas. They do not want teachers with experience, but use inexpensive Teach for America people who will leave after two years. They measure, test and discipline. Google Success Academy in NYC.

 

Funding is pulled from public schools and given to charter operators. This is about politics and money. Schools offer a product that is guaranteed to sell. Hence charters. I am not saying that every single charter is bad, but most are turning out to be. They keep their testing numbers up by pushing out low performing students. So the real public schools have less money and more challenging students.

 

Look at Diane Ravitch's blog, as pp mentioned, or at Bob Braun's Ledger for especially horrifying stories about Newark NJ.

 

Din't get angry at just the teaching method, get angry at the charter school 'reform' method that spawned it.

 

OP thanks for including the second link! I hadn't checked it before posting. Diane says it all better than I ever could.

[Momling]

I wonder if it came from the same tradition (or is an offshoot from) Parent Child Interaction Therapy?  I've done the PCIT training with aggressive foster kids and it's been quite helpful.  It involved having a 'special play time' in which the parent wears an earpiece and is coached to do things like praising kids, describing what they were doing, imitating their play actions, etc...  It's actually a very effective technique that has helped a lot of parents and kids.  That said, it's intended for one parent and child at a time, for a child that's 2-7ish, and for a 10 minute period or so.

 

I doubt very much that whatever is going on in the classroom is very sustainable.  Maybe the coaching is good for a teacher who has poor classroom management skills and the administration is trying to intervene, but I can't imagine it'd ever catch on in a regular school context.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't like it.

 

no other words...

[Mergath]

The school district here trained all the teachers to do something similiar. I can't remember what the program they use is called, but I learned about it during ECFE (basically a once-a-week playgroup through the school for under-fives where the parents get together in the next room and chat or have a speaker). The speaker one week was a rep from the school who came in to explain what we could "look forward to" when our kids headed off to school. (Dh and I had known since I was pregnant we were going to hs, thankfully.)  Anyway, it was the same sort of robotic, scripted thing, where every child is treated exactly the same and you never actually speak to them like a person, just issue commands and canned praise at them like they're dogs. And the school district here starts this in Kindy.  :(  They even offered parent training classes so you could carry over the child-as-naughty-dog training at home. 

 

I remember that I asked the speaker something along the lines of, "But doesn't it freak the kids out, that their teacher sounds like a robot and doesn't ever really talk to them or connect with them?" She looked at me like I was nuts. All they care about is whether or not it's effective at controlling the kids, not what it does to their state of mind.

 

Even the schools here don't have the constant narration component, though. How in the world could anyone concentrate with that? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am trying to figure out just how popular it is.

 

This link shows The Center for Transformative Teacher Training (the company behind the No-nonsense nurturer system) and their client list.  http://transformativeteachertraining.com/client_roster.php

 

I went to one of those - KIPP schools which is more national than the rest and found this map of where they are located.  Fortunately, none are in our state.  http://www.kipp.org/schools/school-directory-home

[SparklyUnicorn]

Apparently I do have more to say.  LOL

 

What bothers me about this is that it seems like something that gets used in urban areas more so than elsewhere.  I often feel like kids are mistreated more often in urban areas.  Granted that is only based on anecdotal evidence.  For example, growing up I lived in an area much less urban than where I live now.  It wasn't rural, but it was a more middle of the road sort of city.  When I'd go to the boys and girls club it was all about having a good time.  I was free to be a kid.  It was a place where I could relax from school stuff.  I had very positive feelings about it.  Fast forward to now, I've had my kids try the local club.  I do live in a rougher and poorer urban area than where I grew up.  They treat the kids completely differently.  Every minute of their time there is highly structured.  Adults there are very robotic and spend a lot of time yelling at the kids for very minor things. The structure isn't about fun.  It's about checking off boxes of what learning experiences they are expected to have.  For ten minutes you will do jumping jacks in the gym.  For the next 20 minutes you will sit in the homework room whether or not you have homework.  For 30 minutes we will lecture you about healthy eating.  You must spend 10 minutes playing in the game room.

 

Now mind you when I took a tour of the place they showed me the pottery room, the pool, the game room, and the kitchen. They talked about all the fun stuff the kids can do.  At no point did my kids get to do anything they showed me.

 

That didn't last.  My kids hated the place.  I don't blame them. 

 

Another anecdote.  I see a lot of camp groups at the city park and pool.  Imagine a group of 40 kids, all of them black.  There are about 10 counselors, almost all of them white.  They stand in the pool to act as extra life guards (the group travels there by bus to use the pool).  The camp counselors correct the kids constantly.  When one does something they aren't supposed to (and I could never tell what it is the kid had actually done that was considered an infraction) they make all the kids get out of the pool and they line them up to lecture them about behavior.  Then they get back in the pool.  This is repeated several times.  HOLY FRIG

 

Needless to say, I do not send my kids to any of these camp programs either. 

 

This is how they are when it's supposed to be "fun".  What is it like in the schools? 

 

It really bothers me.  I suppose it is harder to control larger groups, but it still feels like this would be a lousy way to grow up. 

[Mimm]

"Constant narration of what the students are doing"?! If I were a student in this classroom, I would be so distracted, I would end up learning nothing. It feels like it would be mild mental harassment.

 

I get the thought behind it. Call attention to what people are doing right instead of only speaking up when people are doing something you don't want. But really, how in the world can this not be incredibly distracting? Even the positive video promoting it seemed artificial and weird.

[Mabelen]

It is a one size fits all gone bad. I can see there are tools in the approach that would be useful, especially for a beginner teacher that is lacking self confidence. Where it goes bad is the point at which the teacher's role is relegated to that of a robot and previously established human relationship and rapport between teacher and student are completely disregarded.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree it has some appealing aspects.  I wish I could actually see it in action a bit more before I judge. 

I think this would be an odd thing to implement midway in the year.  If the teacher does her thing one way half the year and then this the other half, that could be confusing and stressful. 

 

 

[Laurie]

 

 

There's a little more information here (it's safe to read the comments). I just woke up, I'll reply to myself with my thoughts and comments later.

 

 

Thanks for the walk down bad memory lane!   This new training program apparently has its roots in an old dinosaur that I remember from my own days as a student teacher:  Lee Canter's Assertive Discipline.    I guess that  "everything old is new again" but with the addition of the electronics.  :001_rolleyes:

 

Different program, but I remember DISTAR, too.   I was at a school in a mostly white neighborhood but the school was able to "desegregate" (on paper)  by offering a DISTAR program.  The mostly minority children were bused in for DISTAR, and they were in their own classrooms.  I asked to observe a reading class and I had never seen anything like it  ...there were even HAND SIGNALS that the teacher was supposed to use.   I couldn't imagine being a teacher or a student in that kind of environment! 

 

 

The garbage that I had to wade through to become a teacher was incredible.   In university classes we were taught about "Culturally Different Time", too.  (Minority students aren't really tardy when they are on CDT.)    And then the school districts are able to convince the parents that their children's best chance for success is when they're treated like lab rats in a classroom.  It's disgusting. 

 

Thank goodness I found Marva Collins' book on my own.  I wish she could have been my mentor teacher!

 

Anyway,  I'm glad that there are teachers and parents getting wise to the ways of the "nurturers" who have always had an agenda for control, eugenics, etc.  They are wolves in sheep's clothing, IMO.  

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Anyway,  I'm glad that there are teachers and parents getting wise to the ways of the "nurturers" who have always had an agenda for control, eugenics, etc.  They are wolves in sheep's clothing, IMO.  

 

This is exactly how it feels. 

This just reinforces my perception that formal teacher education programs are more about classroom management and discipline than education proper.

 

But the teacher who was fired claimed she spent months building up the trust of one particular student, and was worried about losing his trust.  I wonder how much actual learning happened in those months building up trust (one third?  one half? of the school year), only to need to repeat the process next year with a new teacher.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This just reinforces my perception that formal teacher education programs are more about classroom management and discipline than education proper.

 

But the teacher who was fired claimed she spent months building up the trust of one particular student, and was worried about losing his trust.  I wonder how much actual learning happened in those months building up trust (one third?  one half? of the school year), only to need to repeat the process next year with a new teacher.

 

Then again, if he won't attempt to learn because he has so many issues, it won't matter. 

 

I think some of the techniques look ok.  It's just the robotic monotone one size fits all thing that bugs me.  Well now that I say that, I guess the whole thing bugs me.  LOL

[rose]

This just goes against all reason!

[HomeAgain]

 

 

Different program, but I remember DISTAR, too.   I was at a school in a mostly white neighborhood but the school was able to "desegregate" (on paper)  by offering a DISTAR program.  The mostly minority children were bused in for DISTAR, and they were in their own classrooms.  I asked to observe a reading class and I had never seen anything like it  ...there were even HAND SIGNALS that the teacher was supposed to use.   I couldn't imagine being a teacher or a student in that kind of environment! 

 

 

DISTAR is what Teach Your Child To Read In 100 Easy Lessons is based on.

 

I grew up with DISTAR.  I found it comforting as a child.  It was steady, and in a place where children moved in and out often, it was very nice to have that as an anchor.

 

We used 100 EZ Lessons here, not with the hand signals or the Direct Instruction script exactly as written, but both of my kids have thrived with it.  So have many others.  I can't lump DISTAR in with classroom takeover.  It is no different than Nancy Larson or Shurley English or many other programs that tell you exactly what to say, sing, and do as a homeschool teacher.

[Jean in Newcastle]

DISTAR is what Teach Your Child To Read In 100 Easy Lessons is based on.

 

 

Which is why I refused to use it.  I know that many use it and find it helpful.  I also recognize that most do not use it robotically in the home.  But  I remember the DISTAR training from college and I absolutely hated it and the philosophy behind it.  (I have baggage from teacher training. . . )

[Renai]

This just reinforces my perception that formal teacher education programs are more about classroom management and discipline than education proper.

 

But the teacher who was fired claimed she spent months building up the trust of one particular student, and was worried about losing his trust. I wonder how much actual learning happened in those months building up trust (one third? one half? of the school year), only to need to repeat the process next year with a new teacher.

Building trust and learning are not mutually exclusive.

[rose]

Maybe they could go about this in a much easier way if they just gave all teachers in training frontal lobotomies. They would probably have a lot more cooperation that way.

[Mimm]

I don't understand — what is the "bad" part and what is the "worse" part? I get the part about horrible and sometimes dangerous schools not being a good option, but what is the alternative? Why do you need to think about whether a low-income family should or shouldn't homeschool at all, unless you are thinking of your own family?

 

Poor people are people just like non-poor people: they may not have much money to offer, but they have experience and knowledge to offer. 

 

Since I got a new job eight months ago, I can no longer claim to be low-income. However, I can tell you that I am the exact same person I was eight months ago. It's just that I now have a bit more money and a bit less time. The "bit more money" aspect has enabled me to do things I couldn't have done before, like buying more and better books and enrolling my kids in a sport. The "bit less time" aspect means I am less present as a teacher. I was a freelancer before I got this job, so accepting it made sense from a long-term financial stability perspective. That is important, but I think I was able to be a better educator before.

 

Wow, I feel like you took my post waaay personally. I guess I don't "need to think about whether a low-income family should or shouldn't homeschool" but in the course of thinking about and discussing education in general, it's been something that has come up. I have a desire to understand what life is like for people outside of my own family. How is this offensive? :confused1: :confused1:

 

In very low income areas, single motherhood is more common, you find moms struggling to make ends meet while working two, three jobs at minimum wage. Neighborhoods might be dangerous, mom might not have graduated high school, the family may not have access to an internet connection. All these things DO make it more difficult to homeschool. Yet, in many neighborhoods, local public schools are struggling to provide decent educations for the kids as well.

 

You do realize that for some people, lack of money isn't just not being able to buy better books or enroll in a sport right? For some families, they're having trouble putting food on the table. Some schools send kids home on Friday with a bag of groceries. If a parent isn't able to provide decent meals at home (which is why so many schools are trying to provide them at school), then how can they homeschool? But in these cases, schools are often the lesser of two evils, instead of being the education that would BEST serve these children.

[Farrar]

The thing about education and low-income families that I really take away is that it's extremely hard to win. When a parent is struggling financially and personally and posts here about potentially sending their kids to public school, the consensus is often to be supportive of it. To say, hey, it's okay, schools aren't all bad, there are resources, books, etc. etc. But the people who need that resource the most are the ones most likely to face schools with deep problems - some of which are community based, but some of which are like this - where the school is not addressing any of the real issues and may be damaging children. I don't think parents in an affluent community would put up with this system. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The thing about education and low-income families that I really take away is that it's extremely hard to win. When a parent is struggling financially and personally and posts here about potentially sending their kids to public school, the consensus is often to be supportive of it. To say, hey, it's okay, schools aren't all bad, there are resources, books, etc. etc. But the people who need that resource the most are the ones most likely to face schools with deep problems - some of which are community based, but some of which are like this - where the school is not addressing any of the real issues and may be damaging children. I don't think parents in an affluent community would put up with this system. 

 

Yes and unlike what is assumed, not all poor people don't give a crap about their kid's education.  Many in fact care just as deeply and worry to heck about their kids getting a good education.  So they feel as compelled to find a better way through homeschooling.

 

I'm not poor, but my resources aren't unlimited.  I am sure some would poo on my cohice to forgo certain things to homeschool.  And some of those things people would feel are necessities (like braces for cosmetic reasons if you need an example).

[Mimm]

I did not take your post personally at all. I was actually trying to keep it as light-hearted as possible. I kind of feel the need to get personal now though, because this post is even more condescending than the last one, though it has some valid points.

 

First off, yeah, I see what you're saying about the perks of schools sending kids home with bags of groceries. They don't do that in the developing country we live in, but I could see that making a huge difference. For me, the way you worded your post was offensive. It made it sound as if poor people are empty-brained half-lives with nothing to offer their kids, so attempting to homeschool would automatically be a silly idea — though the public school may also be bad.

 

Yes, thanks, having grown up with chronic food shortage issues that only went away when my single mom got a richer partner (who raped me, which is why he and his money stuck around), I do know some people have trouble putting food on the table. I'm also a single mom with almost no formal education, living in a developing country that provides almost no government benefits, and where you need connections to even get that minimum-wage job. I have an internet connection, and have had one for years, because my income depends on it — it's not a luxury, but a necessity. (I worked from home exclusively before landing my new job.) And also, we were your average rice-and-kimchi at the end of the month family, with the equivalent of a few cents in my pocket at payday. (Well, not average exactly, most people here would choose potatoes and bread.)

 

And still, I have to repeat what I said earlier. Poor people are people. They may not have much money to offer, but if they homeschool, it may not be a matter of "bad or worse", but simply a matter of "I considered my options and chose the best option for my family". Many will not consider homeschooling. I was able to do so because I worked from home. Those who consider homeschooling and decide it is not a valid option are probably right in their situation, but we really don't need to describe their choices as being "two evils". Those who consider homeschooling and decide to go ahead also don't need to have their decision talked about in that manner.

 

Again with the reading all sorts of things into my post I didn't even remotely say. I'm simply acknowledging that the obstacles to homeschooling might be enormous but it is by no means a clear decision, with the quality of some of the public schools are available in some neighborhoods. I said "a choice between bad and worse". In other words, a no win situation. What if a mother lacks the resources (time, education, money) to provide a good education at home, but feels her child's physical safety is at risk at school? It might be the better choice to keep the child home. My post was acknowledging these hardships and how difficult it can be for some people to make the best decision for their child because there is no good situation in their life, no matter what their choices are.

 

Your post read as pretty condescending to me, as if you were telling me to stop thinking or talking about other people's educational choices.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I thought Mimm said basically what Farrar said.  

[Alessandra]

Wow, I feel like you took my post waaay personally. I guess I don't "need to think about whether a low-income family should or shouldn't homeschool" but in the course of thinking about and discussing education in general, it's been something that has come up. I have a desire to understand what life is like for people outside of my own family. How is this offensive? :confused1: :confused1:

 

In very low income areas, single motherhood is more common, you find moms struggling to make ends meet while working two, three jobs at minimum wage. Neighborhoods might be dangerous, mom might not have graduated high school, the family may not have access to an internet connection. All these things DO make it more difficult to homeschool. Yet, in many neighborhoods, local public schools are struggling to provide decent educations for the kids as well.

 

You do realize that for some people, lack of money isn't just not being able to buy better books or enroll in a sport right? For some families, they're having trouble putting food on the table. Some schools send kids home on Friday with a bag of groceries. If a parent isn't able to provide decent meals at home (which is why so many schools are trying to provide them at school), then how can they homeschool? But in these cases, schools are often the lesser of two evils, instead of being the education that would BEST serve these children.

Yes, this.

 

I live in NJ and try to keep up with what is happening here. Most suburban communities are fine, even excellent. We are lucky.

 

But in cities with high poverty levels -- Newark, Camden, and others -- the state has taken over the school system. In Newark, for example, the state appointed school superintendent did not attend Board of Education meetings for more than a year, parents no longer were able to be assured of sending a child to a neighborhood school, or sending siblings to the same school. The mayor was an underdog candidate but won overwhelmingly because he supported parent involvement in schools. This spring, there were massive, peaceful protest marches about closing yet more neighborhood schools and turning them into charter schools.

 

In Camden, the state appointed superintendent closed a number of schools because test scores were low, even though there was strong parent involvement and support and schools were improving, although slowly. Neighborhood schools are being turned into charters and given more funding than when they were regular public schools.

 

There is a lot of info on Diane Ravitch's blog, Bob Braun's Ledger, and Save Our Schools NJ fb page. What is happening is horrible. I can't imagine what it must be like to have all local control taken away. In my suburban, not poor, district, we vote for school board members, board meeting are open, and parents' voices are heard.

[Love_to_Read]

This just reinforces my perception that formal teacher education programs are more about classroom management and discipline than education proper.

 

But the teacher who was fired claimed she spent months building up the trust of one particular student, and was worried about losing his trust.  I wonder how much actual learning happened in those months building up trust (one third?  one half? of the school year), only to need to repeat the process next year with a new teacher.

 

Actually, it's just the opposite.  Most teacher education programs do NOT teach classroom management. State certification requirements legislate what must be taught in an accredited teacher training degree, and classroom management rarely makes the cut.  During my time in college, two of our best classes with fieldwork had been reduced to half credit without fieldwork to make room for some other new requirement, and there was already no way to graduate in 4 years without taking summer classes or entering with AP/CLEP credits. Nope, no time to add a course on management.

 

My guess is that this lack of classroom management preparation creates a void.  First year teachers often struggle to learn it on the job as quickly as possible, and low-income urban districts often have a very high rate of teacher turnover.  As the blogger mentions, it takes time to establish trust. Part of that is trust that you aren't going to be gone by mid-semester or next year.  In a district with high turnover, and correspondingly high levels of discipline problems, a creepy solution like this must sound like a life preserver when principals think about what kind of teacher training could get their schools onto an even keel.  Did you notice in the example that the assistant principal (usually the one who handles student discipline while the senior principal handles more of the administrative paperwork) AND the school's behavioral specialist were BOTH in their first year, too??? Talk about the blind leading the blind here.  But that's what happens when a district can't seem to reach the critical mass of having enough staff stick around long enough to become good enough at their jobs through experience to make the place somewhere pleasant enough that other staff want to stay longer as well.  The discipline issues become this negative spiral in which there are too many new people to effectively mentor and turn the tide.  So junk like this looks deceptively appealing.

 

 

And then the second part of your post...

 

Some learning does take place in the process of building trust, but you're right that a huge chunk will be lost next fall when they go replacing this teacher, and the kids put their guards up again.

 

A huge component of building trust is establishing that the work is meaningful and possible...the kids have to trust you that their schoolwork is worthwhile, and that you are providing them with the tools to succeed at it.  They won't be motivated to do work that is too easy and dumbed down, because that's insultingly boring and meaningless. On the opposite side of the coin, they will likewise shut down and stop trying if they think that it is impossible to succeed in your classroom, whether that be because you are asking them to do work for which they are unprepared, or because you aren't giving them a fair chance subjectively. 

 

Giving a detention to the kid who interrupts out of his enthusiasm? There's no way that it's ever going to feel safe for him to fully buy in and participate wholeheartedly if his teacher is too inflexible to understand the difference between ADHD and rudeness.  Automatic detention is not how you teach an impulsive kid how to manage himself.  And other kids see that.  They see that there is no room for mistakes.  And that means that it is not safe to step out and do anything new.  And THAT...that natural childish wiliness to blurt things out and make mistakes...THAT is what language researchers are currently crediting as to why children seem to become fluent faster than adults...because they take more risks in using the language without the same self-consciousness that inhibits teens and adults into not wanting to practice in ways that others might hear them fail.  This discipline style is the antithesis of what that district needs to actually promote fluency and learning in general.

 

My guess is that they are selling this as a way that minority students can at least know that they won't be treated WORSE than other students, in terms of racial or personal bias.  But if you don't know your students individually, you miss things like good intentions expressed poorly. You miss things like stealth dyslexia, in which the child who just read the chapter silently really can't write about it without extra support.  You miss things like the vocabulary word that an ESL child truly misunderstood and therefore didn't know how to start the assignment and was trying to discreetly ask a neighbor for a better explanation or translation. And as others have expressed, how can it possibly not feel like racism to realize that your teacher doesn't see you as an individual human being, just a faceless member of the group to be treated with robot-like precision?   Isn't treating an entire group as homogenous the very definition of stereotyping?

 

And the narration...most students would just about die of embarrassment if the teacher narrated aloud that they were further ahead on the page than others, or further behind.  Either way is setting someone up for ridicule.  I was taught to protect their dignity as much as possible, to try to avoid some of the older methods of grading each other's papers and passing back tests in a way where other students might see who failed miserably and who got a 100% on the test everyone else failed, etc.  That kind of convenience for the teacher isn't worth the social impact on kids who don't fall near the middle. And yet this foolish method wants the teacher to constantly give everyone updates on what everyone else is doing???  Are they trying to stir up some sort of peer pressure for everyone to stay on task? Yeah, right. How about the kids with ADHD who were on task, until you interrupted?  How about the kids who need extra time, who were on task and perhaps even nearly caught up, but are now starting to melt down into a puddle of frustration and embarrassment over how they're always last no matter how hard they try?

 

This is awful. It goes against good thing I was ever taught about teaching well.

 

 

 

 

[Farrar]

I thought Mimm said basically what Farrar said.  

 

I sort of thought so too. Dialectica, I think you made good points, especially about the use of the word "should" and about being careful not to make assumptions. But I also thought Mimm's assumed "should" was maybe in regards to people who post here about their frustration with limited options and not about the world at large.

[Alessandra]

Actually, it's just the opposite. Most teacher education programs do NOT teach classroom management. State certification requirements legislate what must be taught in an accredited teacher training degree, and classroom management rarely makes the cut. During my time in college, two of our best classes with fieldwork had been reduced to half credit without fieldwork to make room for some other new requirement, and there was already no way to graduate in 4 years without taking summer classes or entering with AP/CLEP credits. Nope, no time to add a course on management.

 

My guess is that this lack of classroom management preparation creates a void. First year teachers often struggle to learn it on the job as quickly as possible, and low-income urban districts often have a very high rate of teacher turnover. As the blogger mentions, it takes time to establish trust. Part of that is trust that you aren't going to be gone by mid-semester or next year. In a district with high turnover, and correspondingly high levels of discipline problems, a creepy solution like this must sound like a life preserver when principals think about what kind of teacher training could get their schools onto an even keel. Did you notice in the example that the assistant principal (usually the one who handles student discipline while the senior principal handles more of the administrative paperwork) AND the school's behavioral specialist were BOTH in their first year, too??? Talk about the blind leading the blind here. But that's what happens when a district can't seem to reach the critical mass of having enough staff stick around long enough to become good enough at their jobs through experience to make the place somewhere pleasant enough that other staff want to stay longer as well. The discipline issues become this negative spiral in which there are too many new people to effectively mentor and turn the tide. So junk like this looks deceptively appealing.

 

 

And then the second part of your post...

 

Some learning does take place in the process of building trust, but you're right that a huge chunk will be lost next fall when they go replacing this teacher, and the kids put their guards up again.

 

A huge component of building trust is establishing that the work is meaningful and possible...the kids have to trust you that their schoolwork is worthwhile, and that you are providing them with the tools to succeed at it. They won't be motivated to do work that is too easy and dumbed down, because that's insultingly boring and meaningless. On the opposite side of the coin, they will likewise shut down and stop trying if they think that it is impossible to succeed in your classroom, whether that be because you are asking them to do work for which they are unprepared, or because you aren't giving them a fair chance subjectively.

 

Giving a detention to the kid who interrupts out of his enthusiasm? There's no way that it's ever going to feel safe for him to fully buy in and participate wholeheartedly if his teacher is too inflexible to understand the difference between ADHD and rudeness. Automatic detention is not how you teach an impulsive kid how to manage himself. And other kids see that. They see that there is no room for mistakes. And that means that it is not safe to step out and do anything new. And THAT...that natural childish wiliness to blurt things out and make mistakes...THAT is what language researchers are currently crediting as to why children seem to become fluent faster than adults...because they take more risks in using the language without the same self-consciousness that inhibits teens and adults into not wanting to practice in ways that others might hear them fail. This discipline style is the antithesis of what that district needs to actually promote fluency and learning in general.

 

My guess is that they are selling this as a way that minority students can at least know that they won't be treated WORSE than other students, in terms of racial or personal bias. But if you don't know your students individually, you miss things like good intentions expressed poorly. You miss things like stealth dyslexia, in which the child who just read the chapter silently really can't write about it without extra support. You miss things like the vocabulary word that an ESL child truly misunderstood and therefore didn't know how to start the assignment and was trying to discreetly ask a neighbor for a better explanation or translation. And as others have expressed, how can it possibly not feel like racism to realize that your teacher doesn't see you as an individual human being, just a faceless member of the group to be treated with robot-like precision? Isn't treating an entire group as homogenous the very definition of stereotyping?

 

And the narration...most students would just about die of embarrassment if the teacher narrated aloud that they were further ahead on the page than others, or further behind. Either way is setting someone up for ridicule. I was taught to protect their dignity as much as possible, to try to avoid some of the older methods of grading each other's papers and passing back tests in a way where other students might see who failed miserably and who got a 100% on the test everyone else failed, etc. That kind of convenience for the teacher isn't worth the social impact on kids who don't fall near the middle. And yet this foolish method wants the teacher to constantly give everyone updates on what everyone else is doing??? Are they trying to stir up some sort of peer pressure for everyone to stay on task? Yeah, right. How about the kids with ADHD who were on task, until you interrupted? How about the kids who need extra time, who were on task and perhaps even nearly caught up, but are now starting to melt down into a puddle of frustration and embarrassment over how they're always last no matter how hard they try?

 

This is awful. It goes against good thing I was ever taught about teaching well.

 

 

Nice post.

 

As an aside, a lot of teachers in charter programs have been trained at Teach for America, which is not comparable to regular teacher training. Many Teach fo America teachers have written about how brief their training was and how they felt that they did not serve their students as well as they had hoped.

[Love_to_Read]

The thing about education and low-income families that I really take away is that it's extremely hard to win. When a parent is struggling financially and personally and posts here about potentially sending their kids to public school, the consensus is often to be supportive of it. To say, hey, it's okay, schools aren't all bad, there are resources, books, etc. etc. But the people who need that resource the most are the ones most likely to face schools with deep problems - some of which are community based, but some of which are like this - where the school is not addressing any of the real issues and may be damaging children. I don't think parents in an affluent community would put up with this system. 

 

To note, the district in the article was not only low-income, but also over 70% of the kids spoke native languages other than English, which implies to me that the majority of parents in the district are non-native speakers as well. Where I live, in a community with a strong homeschool support network in a primarily English-speaking area, there are a few bilingual families who are comfortable homeschooling with all of the social opportunities still available for their children, particularly bilingual professionals who are already confident in their own fluency .  But in a district with those demographics, a lot of parents rely on the school to be their children's primary source of exposure to English other than tv, parents who care greatly about their children receiving an education and becoming academically fluent.  There can be a significant language barrier and cultural gap, in which the school district may not even TRY to include parents from other language backgrounds, and parents may find it intimidating or even culturally unheard of to go barging up to the school demanding a better education from the people who are supposed to be the authorities on how to make children learn.  

 

There's a disconnect here, in which districts with these student demographics can get to where they are trying to administer without any input or concern about backlash, the way there would be in an affluent district trying to keep its parents happy, while the majority of the parents do not have homeschooling or private schooling even on the table as options.  Our local districts have been losing a steady stream of kids as they implement Common Core to everyone's horror, but in a district like in the article, there's a good chance the kids aren't going anywhere until the parents move for employment reasons, so no need to worry about keeping them happy.  And while high dropout rates affect a school's rating if they are making the students miserable enough, all that's left are the best students...which artificially boosts test scores to a higher average.

 

They're treating these kids like inmates rather than people. They are micromanaging them like criminals, rather than treating them like children. They are expecting the worst behaviorally and disciplining it to the detriment of learning.  

 

If you read any article about a successful urban school, there's a theme of administrators who praise their students and teachers and expect the best from them.  (And that includes students who ARE criminals, literally, whose principals still give them a chance to live up to high expectations and hope.) There's rarely ever any mention of some new discipline program being given credit for schools that have turned their reputation around from desperate to excelling.  The only exception I can think of, where I've seen articles about discipline training being credited as helping...are the stories about the guy who wrote The Explosive Child.  Some of his work with difficult children has been brought into schools, teaching staff to de-escalate situations by...guess what?...treating the kids as individuals, offering them more grace and patience than punishment, and developing relationships and trust.  Which sounds a whole lot like what the other successful tough urban schools are doing instinctively.

 

Since this is a homeschooling board, I'll go ahead and say it.  This is why I homeschool, rather than using my degree for employment.  This is why I haven't enrolled my kids.  Because top-down micromanaging on a large scale rarely has a positive effect on students or teachers.

 

[Renai]

 

They're treating these kids like inmates rather than people. They are micromanaging them like criminals, rather than treating them like children. They are expecting the worst behaviorally and disciplining it to the detriment of learning.  

 

I agree. I used to work in a high-security juvenile (ages 10-19) prison before I decided to become a teacher. We didn't even treat our inmates that way unless necessary. There was strict discipline, yes, but we didn't treat the kids like idiots. Which is interesting, considering a majority of the employees were retired military (we were within an hour of a base, and I'm a brat myself).

 

The only exception I can think of, where I've seen articles about discipline training being credited as helping...are the stories about the guy who wrote The Explosive Child.  Some of his work with difficult children has been brought into schools, teaching staff to de-escalate situations by...guess what?...treating the kids as individuals, offering them more grace and patience than punishment, and developing relationships and trust.  Which sounds a whole lot like what the other successful tough urban schools are doing instinctively.

 

And the bolded is what I learned while working at the prison. Which is a lot more than what I learned in any teacher education class or workshop.

 

Since this is a homeschooling board, I'll go ahead and say it.  This is why I homeschool, rather than using my degree for employment.  This is why I haven't enrolled my kids.  Because top-down micromanaging on a large scale rarely has a positive effect on students or teachers.

 

[Alessandra]

To note, the district in the article was not only low-income, but also over 70% of the kids spoke native languages other than English, which implies to me that the majority of parents in the district are non-native speakers as well. Where I live, in a community with a strong homeschool support network in a primarily English-speaking area, there are a few bilingual families who are comfortable homeschooling with all of the social opportunities still available for their children, particularly bilingual professionals who are already confident in their own fluency . But in a district with those demographics, a lot of parents rely on the school to be their children's primary source of exposure to English other than tv, parents who care greatly about their children receiving an education and becoming academically fluent. There can be a significant language barrier and cultural gap, in which the school district may not even TRY to include parents from other language backgrounds, and parents may find it intimidating or even culturally unheard of to go barging up to the school demanding a better education from the people who are supposed to be the authorities on how to make children learn.

 

There's a disconnect here, in which districts with these student demographics can get to where they are trying to administer without any input or concern about backlash, the way there would be in an affluent district trying to keep its parents happy, while the majority of the parents do not have homeschooling or private schooling even on the table as options. Our local districts have been losing a steady stream of kids as they implement Common Core to everyone's horror, but in a district like in the article, there's a good chance the kids aren't going anywhere until the parents move for employment reasons, so no need to worry about keeping them happy. And while high dropout rates affect a school's rating if they are making the students miserable enough, all that's left are the best students...which artificially boosts test scores to a higher average.

 

They're treating these kids like inmates rather than people. They are micromanaging them like criminals, rather than treating them like children. They are expecting the worst behaviorally and disciplining it to the detriment of learning.

 

If you read any article about a successful urban school, there's a theme of administrators who praise their students and teachers and expect the best from them. (And that includes students who ARE criminals, literally, whose principals still give them a chance to live up to high expectations and hope.) There's rarely ever any mention of some new discipline program being given credit for schools that have turned their reputation around from desperate to excelling. The only exception I can think of, where I've seen articles about discipline training being credited as helping...are the stories about the guy who wrote The Explosive Child. Some of his work with difficult children has been brought into schools, teaching staff to de-escalate situations by...guess what?...treating the kids as individuals, offering them more grace and patience than punishment, and developing relationships and trust. Which sounds a whole lot like what the other successful tough urban schools are doing instinctively.

 

Since this is a homeschooling board, I'll go ahead and say it. This is why I homeschool, rather than using my degree for employment. This is why I haven't enrolled my kids. Because top-down micromanaging on a large scale rarely has a positive effect on students or teachers.

 

I agree.

 

There is one public (not charter) school district near us that has classes for parents, classes that help parents understand how to help kids with homework, reasonable expectations, and so on.

 

I wish more low income districts offered that level of parent support.

 

ETA. I found a link.

 

http://www.northjersey.com/news/hackensack-parents-flock-to-english-language-course-new-voice-in-kids-schooling-1.734451?page=all

 

Oh, and I wanted to add one more link, about protests in Newark. I find the students inspiring.

 

http://www.bobbraunsledger.com/thousands-of-newark-students-march-against-state-control-of-schools/

[Farrar]

Since charters keep coming up, I have to say... a lot of families here in my city use the charters to escape this sort of philosophy. They choose charters that focus on expeditionary learning or community projects or the like - places that aren't always perfect, but where doing something like this would go against their mission statement. Of course, there were other charters from here on that list... but also run of the mill public schools. This is one place where the market placed solution has at least sort of led to some improvement. But I don't know that it can be replicated many places - you have to have enough diversity of options and enough public transit and population density to make it viable for people to be choosing between not a couple of schools but a dozen or so at least. I don't see that happening most places.

[Tsuga]

If this came to our schools I would homeschool.

 

Luckily it's not here yet.

 

I hate that any child faces this.