My latest book, The Violence Continuum: Creating a Safe School Climate, was released a few weeks ago and is the featured title on the publisher’s home page.
It is now available online at:
Barnes and Noble
New Hampshire, what were you thinking?
New Hampshire, what did you do?
You have managed to shock the education world with this new law.
The state legislature passed a new law, effective January 1, 2012, which requires public school districts to write and implement a policy to allow parents to object to any lesson taught to their children, for any reason. In addition, the school must offer the child an alternative lesson that is acceptable to the parents and the district. The intent and undefined scope of the law is astounding; it makes everything a teacher does, in any content area, subject to second-guessing and outright opposition. And if parents opt to exercise their new rights to object in any numbers, the law is also logistically unworkable. Even one objection by a parent can consume a chunk of a teacher’s precious instructional and preparation time.
Why did this issue come up now?
The curriculum is more standardized and scrutinized than ever before.
It comes at a time when a teacher’s curriculum has likely passed many levels of scrutiny, revision, and approval, and is expected of all children within the state. Gone are the days when teachers decided what to teach by the textbooks found on the classroom shelves, or on what interested them or their students. States now expect every teacher, in every classroom, to use the state-defined learning standards to drive their curriculum and to assess student progress. Deciding what is taught and when it is taught is an involved, time intensive process. These state standards serve as the overarching expectations for all students, and are typically well-thought out and logical. School districts then use the standards and performance indicators to develop a spiraling K-12 curriculum, with learning objectives, materials, and assessments that teach the approved content, attitudes, and skills at each grade level until graduation.
The result is a standard curriculum in grade level classrooms within a building, in all schools in a district, and from district to district throughout the state, one that builds on what was taught and hopefully mastered the previous year. How the standards are actually taught in the classroom is not dictated by the state. This is where teachers are able to apply their professional knowledge and teaching skills to create daily lesson plans that include specific concepts and learner objectives, teaching materials, instructional methods, and learning activities. They are answerable to the state education department and the public for the progress their students make toward mastering the standards.
The logistics are a nightmare!
Did you consider how this would actually work in the real world?
If a lesson must be substituted for one a parent feels is objectionable for some reason, who writes the lesson and who determines whether the content of any substitute lesson is appropriate for teaching in a public school? Who screens the lesson for bias or proselytizing? Who makes sure the content is factual and enables the student to meet the learning standards set for him by the state and district? And what happens if parents want to insert lessons or materials that condone or demonize a particular religion, that preach intolerance of certain groups, or that misrepresent the facts? How will this testy situation be handled?
Was this legislation even necessary in the first place?
What a can of contentious worms your unnecessary law opens up within a school community!
Public school parents already have the prerogative to object to something happening in the school or classroom. But this law sends the message that parents may now determine what their child is taught specifically, down to approving individual lessons and materials. Wise principals and teachers have always listened to parents’ concerns, and accommodated their requests when possible. But they were not obligated to change the curriculum to fit a parent’s views. As long as what they were teaching was age appropriate and followed the district and state curriculum, the school was on solid ground to respectfully decline the request. The message that the school will provide alternative lessons to meet a parent’s beliefs, biases, religion, etc is unworkable and an unwise broadening of control by factions within a community.
Did you think this through on a conceptual level before you approved it?
You seem to have forgotten why a free, democratic society depends on a public educational system.
Schools are a powerful force for the common good yet, that educator Horace Mann called the “great equalizer” of the condition of humankind. We live in a society of many cultures and subcultures that are rich with differences and that share common goals. Students represent the diversity seen in society. Public education in a democracy is predicated on a philosophy of tolerance and understanding of differing opinions and cultures. All children are welcome regardless of their and their parents’ beliefs, race and ethnicity, socio-economic status and educational level, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and special learning needs. The more students are exposed to, learn about, understand, and respect that which is different from them, the more harmonious a society we create. In the words of Albert Schweitzer, “The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings.”
So not only is this law a logistical quagmire, it is a fundamental misreading of the purpose of public education in this country. It undermines the concept of school as a place where teachers and students share ideas freely in a climate of respect, where children learn to judge new ideas against what they already know, and to evaluate the ideas on their merits. We build solidarity based on empathy and compassion. It is the place where students practice the pro-social skills needed to make good personal decisions and to treat others well. What is taught is fit for a pluralist society where public schools do the job of preparing our children to be citizens of good character, who are analytical and creative thinkers and problem solvers.
New Hampshire, it is telling that the legislator who introduced the bill was surprised by the furor it caused across the country. His surprise reveals a profound lack of understanding of what public education means in a diverse, democratic society, how curriculum is developed, and the way schools operate on a daily basis.
Ready to share!
It’s time to share my fascination with what we call “school climate.”
And it’s also time to show my respect for the unique role teachers and principals play in setting a positive school climate and motivating students to learn.
For the past six years I have focused my energies on thinking, researching, and writing about education. I pulled from my experiences as a classroom teacher, building principal, staff development specialist, college teacher and supervisor of student teachers to write three books:
- Teaching is a Privilege: Twelve Essential Understandings for Beginning Teachers (2009)
- Story Power! Breathing Life Into History (2010)
- The Violence Continuum: Creating a Safe School Climate. (Release date November 2011)
The unifying theme of these books is my belief that we owe our students a safe school climate and an engaging learning experience. The climate of a school–how it feels to be a member of the learning community–depends on how each student is treated, by their peers and the adults. When children feel emotionally and physically secure, have a teacher who genuinely cares about them and teaches with enthusiasm, and they are given an active role in their learning, they will grow socially and academically into good people who know how to make healthy choices.
This what this blog is about: making our schools a safe haven and a challenging learning environment for our students. From pre-K to graduation, we need to systematically teach and model positive social skills and attitudes, and expect students to choose non-violent, respectful, and compassionate behavior.
I hope you find my blog thought-provoking and helpful in your safe school climate efforts and that you visit often.
A hurtful experience or a safe haven?
Violence happens in our schools every day. We just need to recognize it.
When we understand that violence is a continuum of hurtful, abusive behavior from subtle to overt, we realize that our students are suffering emotionally and physically, and that many of them are doing it quietly. Children react to hurtful treatment in different ways: they might act out, stop trying to learn, skip school, become physically or emotionally ill, drop out of school, and hurt themselves and others. If we acknowledge the common and pervasive forms of violence that happen on our watch, we can meet our obligation to give children the protection and support they need to be academically and socially successful.
What do we do about it? The antidote to school violence lies in a comprehensive safe school plan that builds a healthy school climate. This climate embeds in the hearts and minds of our children and our school staff the ideals of empathy, respect, tolerance, and compassion. With such a focus, violence of all kinds is recognized and prohibited. We take it seriously and intervene when students are being ostracized, taunted, teased, bullied, or harassed.
My soon to be released book, The Violence Continuum: Creating a Safe School Climate, will help individual teachers and whole schools define violence in terms of this range of hurtful behaviors, and then it will help them determine how and where their particular school needs to improve students’ experiences.
The resulting intentional effort we make to teach and model positive social skills as the foundation of everyday school life gives our children a safe place to learn. And it also teaches them to be good people in the process.
You can go to the Book: The Violence Continuum page for more information about school violence and how you can change the climate of your school and classroom.
Building Trust
How do we build trust with our students, families, and colleagues?
The progression goes like this:
Respect – I value you as a person.
Empathy – I feel what you feel; I see the situation from your prospective.
Compassion – I think and act in ways that show I understand and care.
Trust…earned with respect, empathy, and compassion over time.
Positional Power + Empathy = Compassionate treatment of others
Before the jury is in…
As I write this, the jury is deliberating the fate of Brandon McInerney, 17, accused of first-degree murder – with a hate-crime enhancement – of his classmate, Larry King.
I decided to write this post before the verdict is in. After eight weeks of testimony, which included gang and hate-group experts, classmates, teachers, and evidence of Brandon’s abusive family life, the question is not whether Brandon killed Larry, but whether it was premeditated first-degree murder precipitated by a hatred of gays.
The chilling incident happened on February 12, 2008 in an Oxnard, CA middle school. Brandon McInerney, then 14, brought a gun to school with the intent of shooting Larry King, a 15-year-old openly gay student. Brandon claimed he was bothered by Larry’s unwanted attention and during the first period of the day, while sitting in the computer lab, he walked up to Larry and shot him twice in the back of the head.
I will say up front that I do not believe there is any validity to the defense’s claims that Brandon was pushed into this heinous act. Larry was not responsible for Brandon’s actions, regardless of whether or not his behavior toward Brandon was inappropriate. Bullies and their targets are never justified in taking violent measures to settle a problem.
This case is especially important to me since the role of school climate is a contributing factor. I have followed the case closely and find some evidence troubling, especially with the current recognition that gay bashing and harassment are a problem for young people, and with the increased emphasis on a school’s direct responsibility to protect its students from harm. If what the teachers and others who testified say is accurate, so much went wrong with the way the administrators handled the situation that there is a good chance the tragedy could have been avoided. If they had recognized the seriousness of the situation and made some swift interventions, it would likely not have changed Brandon’s biased views, but it would have changed the behavior of both students. It isn’t a matter of second-guessing. Rather it is about applying basic principles and beliefs to the way the school is run.
Here is my assessment of the forces at play as the situation escalated:
- Larry had a right to express his sexuality and dress as he pleased, as long as this did not interfere with the learning of other students. This is the legal precedent for determining if, for example, a student’s clothing (such as a t-shirt with Hitler on it or one with profanity or threats), or any other form of display is disruptive and therefore unacceptable. As with all legal assessments, it is a subjective determination specific to the situation, and requires thoughtful consideration
- But Larry did not have a right to sexually harass Brandon with suggestive comments, the same as a straight student cannot taunt or make suggestive comments toward another student.
- Teachers testified that they recognized the seriousness of the threats Brandon made about hurting Larry and they knew that Larry was acting inappropriately toward Brandon. The potential for violence was a foreseeable problem and they asked for something to be done. They felt it was time to intervene.
- The administrators and school social worker or guidance counselors needed to listen to the teachers and step in to counsel both Larry and Brandon – separately of course – and advise them that their behavior was inappropriate and would not be tolerated. Their parents should have been called into school. It was the missed opportunity to diffuse the situation.
- If the two students knew the administration and teachers were aware of their conflict, and that they were keeping an eye on them, I think both would have backed off. It would also have been helpful to have teachers, who had a positive relationship with each of the boys, check in with them regularly to keep them on track.
- One of the most regrettable aspects of the case is that the administrators used poor judgment when they said there was nothing they could do, that they had to protect Larry’s civil rights. This is the unfortunate and all too typical non-response to what is seen as a delicate situation. They lacked the confidence and knowledge of the law – and the common sense- to intervene swiftly and thoughtfully, as they needed to do. If there was question about how to handle it, they should have asked for advice from their school attorney – every district has one.
- The evidence was strong that Brandon had white supremacist beliefs, was involved with a neighborhood gang, and was intolerant of gays. One of the first warning signs of a child’s foray into the dark side of hate is to draw symbols of that hate. Brandon’s notebooks were full of them. He also expressed his homophobia to others.
- I think the evidence presented proved that Brandon is guilty of both premeditated murder and of a hate crime. I did not see convincing proof that he was so angry and upset that he was in a dissociative state of mind and acted without full consciousness of what he was doing.
- While Brandon is guilty and will face the consequences of his choices, a fair share of the responsibility for the escalation of the situation falls on the school administrators and a climate and school culture where this kind of behavior was not taken seriously.
If they are to achieve a comprehensive safe school climate based on prevention and early intervention, the adults in a school need to be vigilant observers who care about each student and intervene when trouble is brewing.
You can go the Ventura County Star for a chronology of the events of the case, and for the testimony and arguments presented to the jury. The LA Times is also a good source The case has been covered by major news organizations across the country and is being followed closely by gay advocates. Just search Brandon McInerney, who has now joined the small but infamous club of school killers.
I’ll let you know what happens.
More on the McInerney trial
Monday, August 29 – jury deliberates with no verdict yet
Given that the incident was in a neighboring Ventura County school district, the interest in my area of the country has been particularly keen.
But the murder of Larry King was also the cover story for the July 18, 2008 edition of Newsweek Magazine, “Young, Gay, and Murdered.” You can go to www.thedailybeast.com to see the cover and read the story.
McInerney Murder Mistrial
It had to be a slam dunk, didn’t it? He shot and killed his classmate in front of a room full of students and the defense never contested that he was guilty of the killing. But yesterday the jury told the judge that they were deadlocked with no chance of reaching a unanimous vote.
Brandon McInerney was barely 14 years old when he killed Larry King. Three years later he was tried as an adult, as allowed in California by a 1995 law that changed the cutoff from 16 to 14. To a handful of the jurors, Brandon McInerney was guilty of either first or second degree murder in the death of Larry King. But seven of the jurors wanted to convict Brandon of voluntary manslaughter. It’s no wonder they were a hung jury: When it comes to children, people’s reactions are influenced by many factors, including our cultural belief that adults should protect children from violence, and their personal attitudes and experiences. We have compassion for an abused child and in this case it appears the jury thought that both the murdered child and the murderer were victims.
Trying Brandon as an adult made the jury’s job more difficult. They had to decide which of these adult charges, with very adult consequences, applied:
- The most serious charge was first degree murder, which California defines as the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is the conscious mental determination to commit an unlawful act. While the seven jurors may have believed Brandon did premeditate and have a plan to intentionally murder Larry that day, they also may have believed the mandatory 25 years to life sentence carried by a first degree murder conviction was inappropriate in this situation. And if they convicted him of first-degree murder and a hate crime, the sentence would escalate to mandatory life without parole.
- Second-degree murder is any murder not defined as first-degree murder. To be considered second-degree murder the homicide must be intentional and with malice, but not premeditated or planned. It is also not a killing committed in the “heat of passion.” In California a second degree murder conviction carries a 15 years to life sentence. Again, given the particulars of the case, the possibility of life imprisonment, with little chance for rehabilitation, did not sit well with many on the jury.
- Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the homicide is committed without malice aforethought, and is instead a spontaneous act arising during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. As compared to first and second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter carries a sentence of 3, 6, or 9 years; a life sentence was not an option.
Charged to keep an open mind and to consider all the evidence presented, they heard testimony of warning signs of escalating friction between the two boys and missed opportunities where school officials should have intervened. Adults had a chance to prevent the tragedy and they failed. With all the emotional nuances of the case, it isn’t hard to see why the jury deadlocked.
But was the killing premeditated first degree murder? I believe the evidence proved it was. Brandon told others he was going to kill Larry, and the next day he stole a gun from his house, hid it in his backpack, went to school, sat in the same room as Larry King, and after a few minutes got up and stood behind him, and then shot two bullets into the back of Larry’s head. At the time Larry was not bothering or even interacting with Brandon. There was no argument, no provocation, no verbal taunting that would trigger “a heat of the moment” homicide.
Yet seven of the jurors voted for voluntary manslaughter. Why would they do this? We already mentioned aversion to condemning him to spend a good part or all of his life in prison, but Brandon had other factors working in his favor: he was white, good-looking and boyish, not at all threatening; he killed a gay student portrayed as a flamboyant sexual predator who harassed him; testimony that he suffered great emotional and physical harm at the hands of his father, the same person who taught his sons to believe that gays were an aberration not worthy of respect. Brandon was abused at home and bothered in school by a homosexual, and the jurors felt compassion for him. They could see the tragedy through his eyes.
Did the jurors feel the same compassion for Larry, an openly gay eighth grader who sometimes wore make up and dressed in girl’s clothes? A child of color who had his own share of family issues and lived in foster care? A youngster who was teased and harassed because of his sexuality? Like Brandon, Larry had a tough life and was victimized in school. Did the jurors feel compassion for Larry? Could they see the tragedy through his eyes?
I can’t help but wonder if the circumstances were reversed and Larry King, the gay student, shot and killed Brandon McInerney, the straight student, if there would have been a hung jury.
See related posts.
“Students say best teachers relate to them, make them think.” Is this news?
As I was online looking through the local news about the record-breaking flooding in Binghamton, NY where I used to live, this unrelated headline from September 4, 2011 caught my eye.
Broome-area students say best teachers relate to them, make them think
‘It’s nice when you can talk to a teacher, when it’s interactive’
It seems with the first day of school approaching, a Binghamton Press reporter interviewed area high school students to get their perspective on what makes a good teacher.
They found that students agree with the American Psychological Association teaching module report, “Improving Students’ Relationships with Teachers to Supply Essential Support for Learning” and this quote from Sara Rimm-Kaufman, author of the APA module:
“Teachers who foster positive relationships with their students create classroom environments more conducive to learning and meet students’ developmental, emotional and academic needs.”
The APA module noted a positive student-teacher relationship shared these characteristics:
- Teachers show their pleasure, that they enjoy their students.
- Teachers interact in a responsive and respectful manner.
- Teachers offer help by answering students’ questions in a timely manner and offering support that matches the children’s needs in achieving academic and social objectives.
- Teachers help students reflect on their thinking and learning skills.
- Teachers know and demonstrate knowledge about individual students’ backgrounds, interests, emotional strengths and academic levels.
Pair these positive relationship-based traits with exceptional instructional skills and knowledge of the content, and we have all we could ask for from a teacher.
Good teaching + Caring Relationships = Better Behaving Students + Higher Academic Achievement
I trust this is not news to most parents and educators. Specific personal and professional competencies are necessary for success in any field – sales, health care, construction, counseling, research, law enforcement, administration, running a restaurant. And beyond these field-specific skills and knowledge, success is a product of a strong work ethic and a commitment to continuous improvement, and depends on an ability to relate with your clients and co-workers. In teaching, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the relationship between teacher and student is the critical factor for success, the foundation for everything that happens in the classroom.
People commonly talk about the culture and climate of their workplace – the norms that drive behavior, the way they are treated, and how it feels to work there. Why? Because how we feel in a certain situation and with certain people matters a great deal to us. We feel more secure and work harder for those who respect and care for us and who have earned our respect.
When we apply this premise to students in a school, its meaning is magnified by the expectation of society and families for students to respect authority, and by the potential for abuse when you have such an age and power differential. But it is also magnified by the beliefs and practices of the individual adults who work with our children. In no endeavor, other than parenting, is the relationship between the provider and recipient as critical and delicate as it is between teacher and student.
So to answer my question, no it isn’t news that students do better with teachers who relate to, respect, and challenge them, but it does bear repeating until every adult who interacts with children internalizes the message and molds their behavior accordingly.
5 Essentials = 10 times the student learning
Like
I like the work coming out of the *Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago (CCSR). They use both long- and short-term action research approaches in the study of important educational issues such as dropout rates, social promotion, and school safety. These studies are intended to help educators all over the world make informed decisions on policies and practices that directly affect their students.
Like
I also like their work because they take school climate seriously, not just because of the current attention on bullying-prevention, but because their research shows that school climate is one of five critical factors affecting student achievement, and that relationships are the foundation for how secure and capable students feel.
How safe do you feel?
In their May 2011 report, “Student and Teacher Safety in Chicago Public Schools: The Roles of Community Context and School Social Organization,” the CCSR looked at the factors affecting how safe students and adults feel in their schools. As we might expect, students from high-crime, high-poverty (disadvantaged) areas tended to feel less safe.
But the most revealing and promising finding was that students and adults felt safer in disadvantaged schools with high-quality relationships than they felt in advantaged schools with low-quality relationships. The power of positive, caring relationships among students, families, the community, and school staff trumped the expected negative social effects of crime and poverty! This finding has a dramatic impact on where we choose to focus our efforts to improve student achievement.
Critical Factors
The CCSR has now released its Five Essentials School Reports. Based on 15 years of research data, they identified five factors that matter most for student learning. The climate of the school and the relationship between the school and its families and community again rise to prominence.
The Five Essentials:
- Ambitious instruction (classes are challenging and engaging)
- Learning climate (the school is safe, demanding and supportive)
- Instructional leadership (the principal works with teachers to promote professional growth and school success)
- Professional capacity (teachers collaborate to promote professional growth and school success)
- Family and community ties (the entire staff involves families and communities to advance student learning)
The finding that schools that are strong on three or more of these essentials were 10 times more likely to improve student learning than schools weak in three or more of the essentials should grab our attention and help us focus our efforts. Once again it’s all about relationships and good teaching:
Caring teachers + Engaging instruction = Motivated students + Safe school climate
*The National Research Council recommends the CCSR as a model for better linking research, policy making, and practice.
Part One: Co-opting a good idea
Review of “What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?” a 9/14/11 New York Times article by Paul Tough
The author of this article mentions, often with little or no insight or analysis, some of the most critical issues in education today including the nature and nurturing of character development (the basis of violence prevention), competition and collaboration, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, including reward systems and report cards.
To summarize the “plot” of the article, the author explored the efforts of two atypical New York City schools – the private and prestigious Riverdale Country School for the affluent, and the free KIPP charter school with enrollment open to all NYC students (by lottery). Both focus on preparing students for college and turning out people who are successful in life. Not liking the results they were seeing, they each identified the need to look more closely at character development, and ways to teach those essential character traits typical of a high functioning, autonomous adult.
Using Martin Seligman’s work on positive psychology and his 800-page book (tome) on character strengths and virtues, the headmaster and superintendent of the respective schools looked at the practical benefits of teaching both:
- ”Moral character” – high quality values such as honesty, integrity, compassion, and fairness, and
- ”Performance character,” - high quality behavior such as persistence, team work, self-control, and something researcher Angela Duckworth calls “grit.”
The Good Idea:
The KIPP School ultimately chose the seven of Duckworth’s 24 identified character strengths that were the most predictive of “life satisfaction and high achievement.”
- zest
- grit
- self-control
- social intelligence
- gratitude
- optimism
- curiosity
While life satisfaction and high achievement are not synonymous with living a life of high moral character, the list is useful, especially if social intelligence encompasses positive moral traits and pro-social beliefs and skills.
KIPP then took these seven strengths and converted them into 24 statements, such as the student:
- Is eager to explore new things.
- Believes that effort will improve his or her future.
- Allows others to speak without interruption.
- Remains calm even when criticized or otherwise provoked.
The intent was to use these statements as goals for behavior, and to gauge a child’s progress toward high moral and behavioral character. As we read over the list, they sound like the qualities we’d like to see in everyone.
But then they took a wrong turn.
To be continued…
