VIOLENT or dangerous behavior in school should be completely intolerable and swiftly punished, but we now know that it is not. A recent upsurge in violent incidents and outright thuggish behavior has gotten headlines, compelling Mayor Bloomberg to step forward and accept responsibility for losing control of school discipline.
None of this should have been a surprise, because our top school administrators have a deeply held philosophy of wimpishness that makes it nearly impossible for them to draw a sharp line between right and wrong.
The official statement of the wimpy philosophy can be found in the “student discipline code” issued by the Department of Education in September.
The code identifies a variety of “dangerous or violent behaviors,” such as injuring another student, committing arson or engaging in physical sexual aggression, any of which is criminal behavior that endangers others. The department advises school personnel to respond to these acts with a “range of possible disciplinary responses,” such as “exclusion from extracurricular activities, recess or communal lunchtime.”
Imagine a student who attacked another student being punished by exclusion from lunch!
According to the code, a student who engaged in violent behavior might (or might not) be removed from the classroom by the teacher or suspended by the principal or suspended by the regional supervisor. We now know, however, that such suspensions have not been enforced because of foul-ups in the new system of discipline imposed by Chancellor Joel Klein.
The discipline code of the Department of Education reflects the belief that there is no behavior that is so bad that it cannot be talked away. Students who curse their teachers, who lie to school personnel, who cheat and plagiarize the work of others, are likely to be admonished or reprimanded.
Even the most violent acts that endanger other students might get one of the following responses: referral to a “pupil personnel team,” intervention by mental-health staff, counseling, conflict resolution, peer mediation, development of an individual behavior contract, restitution, short-term behavioral reports and guidance.
This social work-approach has its value for many students, but it encourages the most recalcitrant students to expect that they can talk their way out of any bad behavior.
The Department of Education’s new instructional guide, issued a few weeks ago to help school personnel implement the discipline code, was widely ridiculed because it contained many errors of grammar and spelling. But if reporters had been more observant, they’d have noticed that the guide’s most appalling feature was not its errors but its failure to acknowledge the difference between right and wrong behaviors.
The closest that the Department’s discipline guide approaches to teaching right and wrong is a statement that “There are conditions/behaviors that help us learn and there are conditions/behaviors that keep us from learning.”
One must assume that breaking your classmate’s arm or attacking your teacher would be a “condition/behavior” that would “keep us from learning.” One must assume it, because the instructional guide never deals with the difference between good behavior and bad behavior. It teaches, instead, about recognizing feelings and values and engaging in cooperative learning techniques.
After the press laughed at the dozens of errors in the instructional guide, the department cleaned it up, fired someone who should have proofread it, and then re-issued it to the schools. Anyone who wants to understand why discipline in the schools has spun out of control should read this 53-page exercise in pedagogical gobbledygook.
* Take a look at the “values auction,” where high school students are supposed to “bid” on which of 20 values matter most to them (such as good manners or punctuality or honesty or safety).
* Examine the student activities, such as listening to an advertising jingle and figuring out why it sells the product.
* Review the pedagogical strategies such as “think-pair-share,” or “carousel brainstorming,” which may be useful teaching techniques but have nothing to do with the moral basis of student discipline.
The Department of Education’s discipline code and instructional guide imply that dangerous and violent behavior can be deterred by talking and should be treated with understanding. It is a sweet philosophy, but in the meantime students and teachers need safe classrooms and orderly hallways. The department just doesn’t get it.
