Houston, we have a problem, and it is discipline in the classroom. I can think of no other aspect of education where the pendulum has swung as far – and it doesn’t auger well for our collective future. And the problem stems from two primary sources: lack of parental involvement, and lack of discrimination.
Discipline used to mean regimentation. You did what you were told, when you were told, and shut up the rest of the time, or you were smacked with a ruler, or worse, sent to the principal for “six of the best.” Worse, if you got it at school, you got it twice as badly at home from your parents. That was two generations ago.
Were those the “good old” days? Yes, and no. It was well that teachers and parents worked together, and provided a single, consistent message about behaviour to young people. Yet, I’m not convinced that beating young people is the best way of instilling manners and civic virtue. From my own experiences of being a parent, and watching other parents, I believe that any parent that resorts to violence is admitting defeat, and falling back on the threat that they are bigger – an advantage that is usually temporary.
With a big push from Dr. Spock, we’ve gradually moved away from corporal punishment, while simultaneously our society’s values have dramatically worsened. In research I did for my (shameless plug here) new book, Who Owns Tomorrow?, one aspect of the future I looked at was society and our behaviour towards each other. In that research, I came across a 1998 interview with Daniel Yankelovich, one of the pioneers in the field of opinion polling. Yankelovich was asked how people’s attitudes have changed over the almost 40 years in which he has been polling. He said that in the late 1960s, when the baby boomers were starting to become adults, they realized that, because of the booming economy, they didn’t have to face a lifetime of personal and economic sacrifice for the good of family and society, as the generations before them did. They could, instead, concentrate on “doing their own thing”. This, Yankelovich said, meant that the boomers were significantly more tolerant of the lifestyles of people of different races, religions, sexes, and sexual preferences. But this tolerance came at a cost: “[T]here was a kind of narcissism, preoccupation with self, a loss of moral centered-ness, and this hubris and egoism”. They became self-absorbed and selfish. And this is the selfishness is now manifest in classroom discipline.
It means that parents are busy, and impatient with dealing with school issues. They either stay away entirely, and expect teachers to manage the problems of their kids (because, after all, “that’s what you’re paid for, isn’t it?”). Or they interpret an attempt to discipline their kids as a personal attack, and reply by attacking the teacher, up to and including verbal and physical abuse. Moreover, the boomers (my generation) developed this perverse belief that no matter what goes wrong, it’s somebody else’s fault. Denial of responsibility is the hallmark of my generation.
And, of course, since kids are really very smart, they copy their parents’ actions. That’s why a student, confronted with poor results, bad behaviour, or cheating, will always find a reason why it’s the teacher’s fault, or the school’s fault, or society’s fault, but never their fault.
The upshot of this has been unmanageable classrooms. Not only can teachers no longer use corporal punishment, but they are regularly threatened with lawsuits by students if the teacher so much as puts a restraining hand on a child to intervene in a schoolyard fight. In response, school boards have created rules that hamstring discipline, to the point where teachers can no longer even give a hug to a student that asks for one. And since kids really are very smart, they know that school’s out, so to speak, and that they can get away with murder – sometimes almost literally. As a result, teachers spend more and more time trying to cope with misbehaving kids without the tools to do so. And classroom instruction suffers for all students as a result, even though those who misbehave are still a minority.
Now the pendulum is swinging back the other way – but not in a particularly constructive manner, which is the lack of discrimination I mentioned earlier. Since corporal punishment is impossible, and most other forms of discipline seem unenforceable, we are resorting to administrative punishments: suspension and expulsion. Worse, we are adopting “zero tolerance” policies that label kids, and permanently stigmatize them. They become, in effect, ex-cons with records that hang over the like felony convictions. Zero tolerance has become the standard for the simple reason that there’s no judgment involved, and it’s easy to administer. You metaphorically chop off a hand for a first offense, then chop off the head of a repeat offender. End of issue.
The son of a friend of mine managed, through his own high spirits, to attract one of these labels for doing something relatively trivial – throwing a snowball in a schoolyard. He didn’t even throw it at someone, he threw it at a fence. But the “zero tolerance” rule meant that was an infraction, so he was suspended. And once he was labelled a troublemaker, any time something happened and he was nearby, it was presumed he was at fault.
This is a singularly ineffective way of teaching young, uncivilized human beings to become responsible members of society. Instead, it teaches arbitrariness, and creates unreasonable anxiety and hostility. It can easily ruin a young person’s life by interfering with their ability to get an education.
So, what’s the answer? Well, first, we need discipline, and it has to be effective. But then, it has to be appropriate, which means using judgment in place of zero tolerance. I would suggest this is an issue to be taken up by all parties: students, teachers, parents, and administrators. I would, in fact, start with students, briefing a student government on the need for discipline, describing the kinds of infractions that take place, and asking for suggestions on appropriate ways of dealing with them. I would ask teachers to consider the suggestions of the students, comment on their practicality, and ask for revisions or embellishments on the students suggestions until both groups come to approximate agreement. At that point, take it to the PTA. Ask for their input, and get them to buy into it by including their thoughts and involvement. When all three groups are in essential agreement, take it to the school board, or whatever body has ultimate responsibility, and ask for their blessing. This is actually the hardest part, because administration officials, removed from the classroom, can be both ignorant and arbitrary. If they are, invite the media in to ask why something acceptable to students, teachers, and parents is unacceptable to administrators.
Is this an easy, simple, or quick process? Absolutely not, but students will learn from it. It’s democracy, and as one commentator put it, “Democracy is slow and messy, but it works. Dictatorship is fast, but unjust.” But we need governance in schools that works. Including all interested parties is more likely to get us there than either anarchy or summary execution by zero tolerance.
by futurist Richard Worzel
© Copyright, IF Research, October, 2003.
|
|