My 19 year old sophomore returned to class today after a five week absence. I know for a good part of the time he was gone he had been in jail. I know this because he was arrested here at school. It happened when after a fight between him and another student was broke up he punched a security guard. Even though this is his first appearance in my class since then, I also know he came one other day, a day where he didn’t make it through his first period class before he had to be forcibly removed.
Yet there he was sitting in my class, with a cat eating grin on his face.
These were far from his first run-ins of the year. I myself had written him up several times for being defiant and disrespectful and I know other teachers have too. Also a few months back he went to a conduct review hearing for threatening to murder one of the deans. As an ESE student he is entitled to a conduct review to see if his behavior is a manifestation of his disability. What’s this young man’s disability, you ask; well he has a learning disability, he needs extra time to process information. How that manifests to him threatening and hitting school board employees, fighting with other children (and at nineteen he’s an adult, it’s the people he is fighting with that are children), being disrespectful and disruptive is beyond me but somehow the school district reasons it does as they stamped his and routinely stamp most conduct review visits “manifestation of disability”.
A master of the system he promised to enter the work program, but three weeks later and with no sign of employment in sight we realized that this had been a ruse and that we had been duped by him once again. Then a little less than two months ago I sat in a meeting where a district psychiatrist after interviewing him and reviewing his records said she was going to recommend he be sent to an alternative school so he could no longer “terrorize students… and teachers.” An interesting choice of words I thought at the time, but as long as he went away I was okay with it, yet there he was back in my class.
As I said, I had written him up a few times. After one time particularly nasty outburst in my room, he told me if I wrote him up I would be the one who got in trouble not him, and in a way he was right. If teachers write to many referrals, then their classroom management and skills as a teacher are questioned. Furthermore a lot of teachers don’t see the point of writing kids up just to see them returned to class with no real consequences for their actions. Often when they come back they are worse, not contrite as they should be but angry for the momentary time away from their friends. So teachers just endure or kick them out when they can’t endure anymore, but they aren’t the only ones that are forced to put up with their behavior, the other students in the class, your sons and daughters have to endure it as well.
Speaking of enduring, I had to endure my 19 year old sophomore talk about how jail was not so bad to his classmates. You got three squares a day and if you had money in your commissary you could get a packet of noodles for fifteen cents and a Little Debbie for a quarter, he told them. He continued, I said when they arrested me that I’m not scared of jail, and it was actually kind of fun sometimes, talking to the old timers. When a kid says jail is kind of fun, what do teachers have left, what can we do? The answer is not much.
I sometimes write about magnet schools and how I think they are unfair but in a way I am a hypocrite. You see if I had any high school aged children I would want them to go to a magnet school and it’s not because the teachers there are better, it’s because they are safer as your modern high school can be a dangerous place. Furthermore I wouldn’t want my children around kids who didn’t care about themselves or school and who thought that it was okay to disrupt class and be disrespectful to teachers. A colleague told me what he said to his class once. He said, “If you don’t care about school or you want to come to my class and just skate through you can, I don’t ask a whole lot, the class isn’t that tough and like most things in your life learning is up to you but if that’s what you want to do can you at least pretend to be decent human beings, while you do it.” I would want my children to be around decent human beings.
That’s not to say there are not a lot of good kids at my school; in fact I would say most of them are. Some of the kids in my classes who are just marginally, at best, interested in school are also some of my favorites. Sadly however there is a significant number of kids who don’t care, who only come to school because they are forced to or to see what trouble they can find or to take care of business. And what’s worse, is the fact a lot of these kids, like my 19 year old sophomore, who when he wants to be can be very charming, are role models. I don’t know when it happened but at some point looking up to teachers became not cool and looking up to kids who are disruptive and disrespectful to teachers did. It was so disheartening seeing several of my students hanging on my nineteen year old sophomores every word, especially his words, “jail is kind of fun.”
How do we turn these kids around? I would first suggest changing the schedule, ninety minutes in high school is way too long. When is the last time you got a 14 year old to focus that long on anything? Next have curriculums kids are interested in, bring back trades and skills, plus having more electives that can have an accompanying academic component couldn’t hurt either. Then we have to bring back discipline, when a child acts out they must get a meaningful consequence for their actions, if not all they have learned is it doesn’t matter what they do and that invariably means that their behavior will worsen.
So what’s going to happen to my nineteen year old sophomore? I am told he goes back for another conduct review later this month. Until then he is allowed to come to school, where I am sure he will let his classmates know, “jail is kind of fun.”
Showing posts with label Teacher Training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teacher Training. Show all posts
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Who does Teach for America have nude pictures of
John Affeldt.Managing Attorney at Public Advocates, a non-profit civil rights law firm; twice recognized as California Attorney of the Year
As I reported in the Huffington Post last Thursday and updated since, Congress seems ready to lower the standard of teacher owed every child in the country -- particularly impacting children in poor and minority communities -- and to hide that fact while they're at it.
Slipped in at the 11th hour into the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, the provision at issue proposes to call novice teachers still learning how to teach in alternative preparation programs on nights and weekends "highly qualified" under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). That designation relieves districts of having to tell parents of the teachers' sub-par preparation and allows their continued concentration in poor and minority schools.
Pushed by Teach for America so that they can continue to operate business as usual, it appears more important to Congress to change the law to accommodate TFA than to ensure the equity provisions of NCLB operate as intended. Alternate route trainees (only a few percent of which are actually from TFA) are disproportionately concentrated in low-income, high minority schools despite NCLB's requirement that teachers lacking full credentials be equitably distributed across schools.
The problem is that actual parents and students in schools where these alternative route trainees teach don't want their classrooms to be the exclusive training grounds. They also want the disclosures that NCLB promises as to which teachers have been fully prepared to teach their children and which haven't.
Secondly, serious concerns have been raised by researchers about exposing children to a churn of these novice teacher-trainees in low-income schools--both because these teachers on average do not seem to produce the same achievement gains that fully-trained teachers do (i.e., those who have graduated from traditional or alternative preparation programs like TFA) and because the interns are churning through and not staying around for the long haul.
And that will be the biggest loss under NCLB if amended: states and districts will be relieved of having to develop policies that attract and retain fully-prepared teachers to the neediest schools. Instead, they can continue to maintain the status quo of having so-called "highly qualified" alternative route trainees learn on poor peoples' children--and then move on.
Of course, these same parents and students want Congress to enact new laws requiring states and districts to evaluate teachers for effectiveness and to equitably distribute effective teachers too. But it's not an either or proposition, especially since effectiveness cannot meaningfully be measured for two to three years in. Parents want their child's new teacher to be adjudged fully-prepared and ready to teach on day one.
Responding to some of these concerns which were noted by Valerie Strauss in her Washington Post blog today, Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Committee that covers education, issued the following statement:
"There is broad, bipartisan agreement among members of Congress and the Obama administration that it is the intent of Congress for alternative-route teachers to be considered highly qualified, consistent with the regulation that has been in place for several years. Chairman Harkin strongly believes that teacher quality is essential to student success, and intends to address this issue as part of a comprehensive ESEA reauthorization. While that process is underway, the 9th Circuit's decision - which reverses a previous court ruling in favor of the regulation - could cause significant disruptions in schools across the country and have a negative impact on students. Maintaining current practice is a temporary solution, and underscores the need to act quickly and reauthorize ESEA early in the next Congress."
Senator Harkin's statement fails to acknowledge that what the courts have called an illegal expansion of the "highly qualified" teacher definition has never been part of the law, and was rejected by Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller early on. To write what was an illegally expansive regulation into law will be a major change from the past. To permit a teacher who may have only just enrolled in preparation to be called "highly qualified" before they have met any training standards defies common sense. To visit those underprepared teachers disproportionately on low-income students and students of color -- and on special education students who are among those most often taught by underprepared teachers -- and then hide that fact from parents and the public under a "highly qualified" moniker flies in the face of the equity, transparency and accountability that NCLB and our leaders apparently stand for.
The fear of "significant disruptions" in the teaching force has no basis, as the court case is currently being appealed and no classroom assignments will be upset mid-year. Furthermore, where there are needs, schools will continue to hire less-than-highly-qualified teachers, as is the case in several hundred thousand classrooms today. NCLB permits such teachers to continue to be employed as long as they fill shortage areas, are publicly disclosed and equitably distributed.
If this were just about enacting a "temporary solution" to avoid short-term disruptions, the language would not seek to modify the highly qualified teacher definition for the next 2½ years. Instead, it has now become more important to maintain the status quo of using poor and minority schools as the proving grounds for these trainee teachers than enforcing teacher equity as NCLB called for and as parents are demanding.
There is a real disruption here -- and it's been to the democratic process. Significantly modifying the standard of teacher quality owed every child in the nation is not something that should happen at the close of session, in the dead of night, behind closed doors in an appropriations bill, but where it is supposed to -- in the light of day during the ESEA reauthorization, with time for deliberation and public input.
[Update: 12/21/10: As expected, the Senate and House enacted the Continuing Resolution today. Congressman George Miller issued a statement explaining his vote in favor of watering the down the highly qualified teacher standard he played a significant role in writing. Miller maintained the vote was necessistated by the possible "major and unpredictable disruptions to schools across the country" if the 9th Circuit's decision were to be implemented. Both Harkin and Miller have now referred to disruptions without articulating just what these disruptions are. As I explained to Congressman Miller's staff on Monday, no disruptions are anywhere on the horizon given the status of the case on appeal and the desire of all parties to avoid any "disruptions." Certainly no imminent disruptions have been identified that warrant enacting this significant amendment to the ESEA without proper public processes and deliberation.]
[Disclosure: I am the lead plaintiffs' counsel in Renee v. Duncan, the case that produced the recent 9th Circuit decision striking down the Department of Education's regulation awarding highly qualified status to teacher trainees.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-affeldt/congress-lowering-standar_b_799523.html
As I reported in the Huffington Post last Thursday and updated since, Congress seems ready to lower the standard of teacher owed every child in the country -- particularly impacting children in poor and minority communities -- and to hide that fact while they're at it.
Slipped in at the 11th hour into the Continuing Resolution to fund the government, the provision at issue proposes to call novice teachers still learning how to teach in alternative preparation programs on nights and weekends "highly qualified" under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). That designation relieves districts of having to tell parents of the teachers' sub-par preparation and allows their continued concentration in poor and minority schools.
Pushed by Teach for America so that they can continue to operate business as usual, it appears more important to Congress to change the law to accommodate TFA than to ensure the equity provisions of NCLB operate as intended. Alternate route trainees (only a few percent of which are actually from TFA) are disproportionately concentrated in low-income, high minority schools despite NCLB's requirement that teachers lacking full credentials be equitably distributed across schools.
The problem is that actual parents and students in schools where these alternative route trainees teach don't want their classrooms to be the exclusive training grounds. They also want the disclosures that NCLB promises as to which teachers have been fully prepared to teach their children and which haven't.
Secondly, serious concerns have been raised by researchers about exposing children to a churn of these novice teacher-trainees in low-income schools--both because these teachers on average do not seem to produce the same achievement gains that fully-trained teachers do (i.e., those who have graduated from traditional or alternative preparation programs like TFA) and because the interns are churning through and not staying around for the long haul.
And that will be the biggest loss under NCLB if amended: states and districts will be relieved of having to develop policies that attract and retain fully-prepared teachers to the neediest schools. Instead, they can continue to maintain the status quo of having so-called "highly qualified" alternative route trainees learn on poor peoples' children--and then move on.
Of course, these same parents and students want Congress to enact new laws requiring states and districts to evaluate teachers for effectiveness and to equitably distribute effective teachers too. But it's not an either or proposition, especially since effectiveness cannot meaningfully be measured for two to three years in. Parents want their child's new teacher to be adjudged fully-prepared and ready to teach on day one.
Responding to some of these concerns which were noted by Valerie Strauss in her Washington Post blog today, Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Committee that covers education, issued the following statement:
"There is broad, bipartisan agreement among members of Congress and the Obama administration that it is the intent of Congress for alternative-route teachers to be considered highly qualified, consistent with the regulation that has been in place for several years. Chairman Harkin strongly believes that teacher quality is essential to student success, and intends to address this issue as part of a comprehensive ESEA reauthorization. While that process is underway, the 9th Circuit's decision - which reverses a previous court ruling in favor of the regulation - could cause significant disruptions in schools across the country and have a negative impact on students. Maintaining current practice is a temporary solution, and underscores the need to act quickly and reauthorize ESEA early in the next Congress."
Senator Harkin's statement fails to acknowledge that what the courts have called an illegal expansion of the "highly qualified" teacher definition has never been part of the law, and was rejected by Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller early on. To write what was an illegally expansive regulation into law will be a major change from the past. To permit a teacher who may have only just enrolled in preparation to be called "highly qualified" before they have met any training standards defies common sense. To visit those underprepared teachers disproportionately on low-income students and students of color -- and on special education students who are among those most often taught by underprepared teachers -- and then hide that fact from parents and the public under a "highly qualified" moniker flies in the face of the equity, transparency and accountability that NCLB and our leaders apparently stand for.
The fear of "significant disruptions" in the teaching force has no basis, as the court case is currently being appealed and no classroom assignments will be upset mid-year. Furthermore, where there are needs, schools will continue to hire less-than-highly-qualified teachers, as is the case in several hundred thousand classrooms today. NCLB permits such teachers to continue to be employed as long as they fill shortage areas, are publicly disclosed and equitably distributed.
If this were just about enacting a "temporary solution" to avoid short-term disruptions, the language would not seek to modify the highly qualified teacher definition for the next 2½ years. Instead, it has now become more important to maintain the status quo of using poor and minority schools as the proving grounds for these trainee teachers than enforcing teacher equity as NCLB called for and as parents are demanding.
There is a real disruption here -- and it's been to the democratic process. Significantly modifying the standard of teacher quality owed every child in the nation is not something that should happen at the close of session, in the dead of night, behind closed doors in an appropriations bill, but where it is supposed to -- in the light of day during the ESEA reauthorization, with time for deliberation and public input.
[Update: 12/21/10: As expected, the Senate and House enacted the Continuing Resolution today. Congressman George Miller issued a statement explaining his vote in favor of watering the down the highly qualified teacher standard he played a significant role in writing. Miller maintained the vote was necessistated by the possible "major and unpredictable disruptions to schools across the country" if the 9th Circuit's decision were to be implemented. Both Harkin and Miller have now referred to disruptions without articulating just what these disruptions are. As I explained to Congressman Miller's staff on Monday, no disruptions are anywhere on the horizon given the status of the case on appeal and the desire of all parties to avoid any "disruptions." Certainly no imminent disruptions have been identified that warrant enacting this significant amendment to the ESEA without proper public processes and deliberation.]
[Disclosure: I am the lead plaintiffs' counsel in Renee v. Duncan, the case that produced the recent 9th Circuit decision striking down the Department of Education's regulation awarding highly qualified status to teacher trainees.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-affeldt/congress-lowering-standar_b_799523.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)