This post was originally written for the website Summit Series for Families.
It is natural for parents to want to protect their children from bullies, and it is natural for parents to want their children’s school to address bullying when it happens. But what can schools really do about bullying, and what can parents do to help the schools help them?
Justin Patchin, co-director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, discusses what is and what is not in the scope of responsibility of schools in a blog post on his website. He explains that students have freedom of speech at school just like they do outside of school. What is problematic is when that freedom of speech turns ugly against our children. We as parents want the school to make it stop. But what can the school do specifically? Schools are allowed to restrict students’ speech and discipline behavior at school in order to maintain an appropriate learning environment, but if a school is going to intervene in something that occurred off campus (like on Facebook or via text message or email), that speech or behavior has to present itself as causing or likely causing a significant disruption of the learning environment. Regardless, the school can do certain things like call parents, talk to students involved, or even impose extra-curricular sanctions.
What does all this mean in terms of help a parent can expect from the school? The first thing to keep in mind if your child is being bullied is that the school really does want to help but may be limited in the action it can take. The next thing to do is tough – keep your emotions under control. This is difficult because it is instinctual for a parent to protect his/her child from harm, but in order to accomplish things quickly and effectively, the parent needs to be calm and rational when coming to the school for help.
According to the principal and dean of students at the junior high where I teach as well as a tip sheet published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the most important thing is to keep evidence. If cyberbullying is occurring, it is imperative to save and print out copies of emails, web pages, and pictures. Keep copies of text messages – they can even be forwarded from the child’s phone to the parent’s phone. It is also helpful to type out the date, time, and text of text messages, but don’t delete the actual texts themselves! Don’t delete any voice mails, either. Learn more about keeping digital evidence here. If the bullying is taking place in person, keep a log of bullying incidents. Have your child explain when and where the bullying took place, who was involved, who else was there as, what was said or done, and how the incident finally ended. Keeping a log like this can establish of pattern of behavior and may offer other insights, like the most common places or times the bullying is happening.
It is also important to keep lines of communication open with the school. As a teacher, I appreciate when a parent tells me of conflict involving his/her child and another student in my class. This allows me to keep a close eye on the students and avoid potential problem situations like having the students work as partners. Let the school know how the situation is progressing – have things improved or gotten worse?
If the bullying turns violent or threatening, or the bullying cannot be disciplined through the school, don’t hesitate to contact local law enforcement. They will need the same kinds of evidence.
Don’t be afraid to step in and help your child if he/she is being bullied, and don’t be afraid to involve the proper authorities and notify your child’s school. Most bullying situations don’t resolve themselves; they require adult intervention.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Is It Bullying or Just Teasing?
This post was originally written for the website Summit Series for Families.
As a teacher, I often have students tell me they are being bullied. Parents will also email me and my colleagues alerting us to bullying. The term “bullying” has come to be commonly thought of as any mean or unkind behavior exhibited toward another person. This is only partially true, so it is important to really understand the difference between what is truly bullying and what is just teasing.
Bullying is angry and hostile. The body language and tone of voice are key indicators. Bullies will act aggressively, moving in close to their target, maybe clenching their fists or speaking through gritted teeth or a sarcastic smile. The tone of voice might be insulting, mocking, or threatening. It will also appear one-sided, with the bully doing most of the talking. Teasing, on the other hand, will appear playful and more easy-going. Kind gestures and expressions can be observed. There will likely be a playful back-and-forth between the parties; both people will be speaking and even smiling or laughing.
Bullying continues or escalates when the victim becomes upset. Bullies are trying to elicit this type of response and will exploit it once they’ve found a weakness. On the other hand, teasing isn’t meant to be hurtful so it usually stops once one person becomes upset. There may even be an apology, which certainly won’t accompany bullying (at least not a sincere apology).
Teasing can turn into bullying if it is taken too far and doesn’t stop happening. Once a situation appears to be more than teasing, another “test” to use to determine if a behavior is bullying is to use the acronym RIP.
R stands for “repeated.” Bullying is a pattern of behavior. It happens often, even constantly, to the same victim from the same offender or offenders.
I stands for “intentional”. If a student bumps into another student in a crowded hallway, that isn’t necessarily bullying. When that bump happens every day during every passing period and the offender knows what he/she is doing, that’s bullying because it is done purposefully.
P stands for “power”. Bullies like to have power over their victims. They will use repeated, intentional, and even seemingly innocent behaviors to subtly assert that power. When a bully purposely and repeatedly bumps into that kid in the crowded hallway, it can be passed off to a teacher or other adult as accidental, but the bully and his/her victim both know better. The victim is rendered nearly helpless – who would seriously complain about being jostled in a crowded hallway? The bully has now gained power over the victim.
It’s important to be alert to behaviors that are clearly hostile or could easily become hostile. But it’s not appropriate to label every negative interaction that occurs among children as “bullying.” To really see bullying, one needs to watch for the subtleties in the exchange that is taking place and document all behaviors to look for a pattern.
Learn more about the difference between bullying and teasing here.
As a teacher, I often have students tell me they are being bullied. Parents will also email me and my colleagues alerting us to bullying. The term “bullying” has come to be commonly thought of as any mean or unkind behavior exhibited toward another person. This is only partially true, so it is important to really understand the difference between what is truly bullying and what is just teasing.
Bullying is angry and hostile. The body language and tone of voice are key indicators. Bullies will act aggressively, moving in close to their target, maybe clenching their fists or speaking through gritted teeth or a sarcastic smile. The tone of voice might be insulting, mocking, or threatening. It will also appear one-sided, with the bully doing most of the talking. Teasing, on the other hand, will appear playful and more easy-going. Kind gestures and expressions can be observed. There will likely be a playful back-and-forth between the parties; both people will be speaking and even smiling or laughing.
Bullying continues or escalates when the victim becomes upset. Bullies are trying to elicit this type of response and will exploit it once they’ve found a weakness. On the other hand, teasing isn’t meant to be hurtful so it usually stops once one person becomes upset. There may even be an apology, which certainly won’t accompany bullying (at least not a sincere apology).
Teasing can turn into bullying if it is taken too far and doesn’t stop happening. Once a situation appears to be more than teasing, another “test” to use to determine if a behavior is bullying is to use the acronym RIP.
R stands for “repeated.” Bullying is a pattern of behavior. It happens often, even constantly, to the same victim from the same offender or offenders.
I stands for “intentional”. If a student bumps into another student in a crowded hallway, that isn’t necessarily bullying. When that bump happens every day during every passing period and the offender knows what he/she is doing, that’s bullying because it is done purposefully.
P stands for “power”. Bullies like to have power over their victims. They will use repeated, intentional, and even seemingly innocent behaviors to subtly assert that power. When a bully purposely and repeatedly bumps into that kid in the crowded hallway, it can be passed off to a teacher or other adult as accidental, but the bully and his/her victim both know better. The victim is rendered nearly helpless – who would seriously complain about being jostled in a crowded hallway? The bully has now gained power over the victim.
It’s important to be alert to behaviors that are clearly hostile or could easily become hostile. But it’s not appropriate to label every negative interaction that occurs among children as “bullying.” To really see bullying, one needs to watch for the subtleties in the exchange that is taking place and document all behaviors to look for a pattern.
Learn more about the difference between bullying and teasing here.
Five W's and an H: Cyberbullying
This post was originally written for the website Summit Series for Families
Gone are the days of what adults think of as bullying: the boy on the playground threatening to beat up someone for lunch money. Nowadays, bullying comes in a more insidious form that has coined its own genre – cyberbullying. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center cyberbullying is the “…willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” Since this form of bullying and harassment is a new form of intimidation, parents need to learn everything they can about it in order to protect their children from it, prevent their children from doing it, and help their children deal with it when they encounter or experience it.
WHO are the cyberbullies? Ultimately, anyone with access to technology can be a cyberbully. However, research done by Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin shows that girls are slightly more likely to be cyberbullies than boys, and cyberbullying behavior seems to occur at even rates among all races/ethnicities (see graphs of their research here).
WHAT is cyberbullying? Simplifying the definition above, cyberbullying is the use of technology to harass and intimidate others.
WHERE does cyberbullying happen? It is incorrect to think that all incidents of cyberbullying happen at home. Cyberspace has expanded beyond the walls of our homes so cyberbullying occurs wherever kids can use technology, which can include a friend’s house, school, the library, the mall, or in the car with parents. Smart phones and computers allow kids to be connected to the world literally every place they go.
WHEN does cyberbullying start? Some research indicates that kids experience cyberbullying in their teens and that it is most prevalent among 15 and 16 year olds but really can start any time children have access to technology, which can be as early as age 10 when kids might get cell phones or some relatively unsupervised time on a computer (see research by the National Crime Prevention Council here).
WHY do kids cyberbully? A thorough list of possibilities can be found here through the Stop Cyberbullying website. The bottom line is some reasons stem from misguided attempts to do something perceived as good (like improving social standing or defending a friend) to reasons that are more sinister in nature (like anger, revenge, power, or to elicit a reaction). Ultimately, many kids can’t succinctly express why they do it.
HOW do kids cyberbully? The most prevalent forms of cyberbullying include posting mean or hurtful comments online and spreading rumors. The most commonly used forms of technology include cell phones and texting, Facebook, and game systems such as xBox 360 (see data).
The kids of today have always had technology as a part of their lives. For the majority of adults, it hasn’t been with us for even half of our lives. Because of this, parents need to learn about the technology that is at their children’s fingertips in order to do our jobs as parents by bringing up safe, responsible digital citizens.
Gone are the days of what adults think of as bullying: the boy on the playground threatening to beat up someone for lunch money. Nowadays, bullying comes in a more insidious form that has coined its own genre – cyberbullying. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center cyberbullying is the “…willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” Since this form of bullying and harassment is a new form of intimidation, parents need to learn everything they can about it in order to protect their children from it, prevent their children from doing it, and help their children deal with it when they encounter or experience it.
WHO are the cyberbullies? Ultimately, anyone with access to technology can be a cyberbully. However, research done by Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin shows that girls are slightly more likely to be cyberbullies than boys, and cyberbullying behavior seems to occur at even rates among all races/ethnicities (see graphs of their research here).
WHAT is cyberbullying? Simplifying the definition above, cyberbullying is the use of technology to harass and intimidate others.
WHERE does cyberbullying happen? It is incorrect to think that all incidents of cyberbullying happen at home. Cyberspace has expanded beyond the walls of our homes so cyberbullying occurs wherever kids can use technology, which can include a friend’s house, school, the library, the mall, or in the car with parents. Smart phones and computers allow kids to be connected to the world literally every place they go.
WHEN does cyberbullying start? Some research indicates that kids experience cyberbullying in their teens and that it is most prevalent among 15 and 16 year olds but really can start any time children have access to technology, which can be as early as age 10 when kids might get cell phones or some relatively unsupervised time on a computer (see research by the National Crime Prevention Council here).
WHY do kids cyberbully? A thorough list of possibilities can be found here through the Stop Cyberbullying website. The bottom line is some reasons stem from misguided attempts to do something perceived as good (like improving social standing or defending a friend) to reasons that are more sinister in nature (like anger, revenge, power, or to elicit a reaction). Ultimately, many kids can’t succinctly express why they do it.
HOW do kids cyberbully? The most prevalent forms of cyberbullying include posting mean or hurtful comments online and spreading rumors. The most commonly used forms of technology include cell phones and texting, Facebook, and game systems such as xBox 360 (see data).
The kids of today have always had technology as a part of their lives. For the majority of adults, it hasn’t been with us for even half of our lives. Because of this, parents need to learn about the technology that is at their children’s fingertips in order to do our jobs as parents by bringing up safe, responsible digital citizens.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Honors Classes
My students are currently driving themselves insane filling out honors applications for high school. Every year I go through the panic with them because their desire to get into honors classes is palpable. However, I often wonder if all the blood, sweat, and tears is worth it. I suppose that depends on why these kids want to be in honors classes to begin with.
When I was in high school, I was in honors classes. If I ask myself why, I guess there were a couple of reasons. One reason was because that was what my parents wanted from me. They had high expectations for me academically so it was natural for me to be in high level classes. I also wanted to be there because I deserved to be in honors classes. I know that sounds arrogant, but I liked school and I liked seeing how well I performed on standardized tests (I actually got a thrill at seeing the little bar on the chart going all the way to the 99th percentile). I knew I had the academic mettle to be in honors classes, so I deserved to be placed in them. I will also admit that I wanted honors classes for the prestige factor. I liked being in with the "smart" kids. I liked telling my non-honors class friends about what I was doing in class and having them be impressed. Or at least they acted like it. In hindsight, I have realized that I liked being challenged. In high school, I thought I hated it, but now I realize that I thrive on being pushed to think.
The down side of honors classes, for me personally, actually consisted of two apparently contradictory parts. One thing I found when I got to college was that the honors classes didn't seem to matter to anyone. I didn't get anything special out of college because I had been in honors classes in high school. I didn't get to move ahead any faster. Now, maybe I did and just didn't realize it. Maybe my academic transition to college was pretty easy because I had honors classes in high school. But I guess I expected something more tangible, some noticeable edge. It simply didn't seem to be there. The flip side was honors classes actually worked against me in college in math and science. I was an English major so I was looking to take the easiest math and science classes I could in college, preferably something with the course number 101. No such luck. Honors math and science classes landed me in college level trigonometry and advanced chem courses; I wasn't allowed the 101 courses! I was not a happy camper!
In hindsight, I am glad I took honors classes in high school mostly because I enjoyed the challenge. As my students work on their honors applications, I often wonder what their reasons are. I hope if they get into honors classes, they are all they want them to be and do it for the right reasons. I also want them to know that if they apply and don't get in, they still have a promising future. Honors classes are wonderful if they are appreciated, but they do not define a student's potential.
When I was in high school, I was in honors classes. If I ask myself why, I guess there were a couple of reasons. One reason was because that was what my parents wanted from me. They had high expectations for me academically so it was natural for me to be in high level classes. I also wanted to be there because I deserved to be in honors classes. I know that sounds arrogant, but I liked school and I liked seeing how well I performed on standardized tests (I actually got a thrill at seeing the little bar on the chart going all the way to the 99th percentile). I knew I had the academic mettle to be in honors classes, so I deserved to be placed in them. I will also admit that I wanted honors classes for the prestige factor. I liked being in with the "smart" kids. I liked telling my non-honors class friends about what I was doing in class and having them be impressed. Or at least they acted like it. In hindsight, I have realized that I liked being challenged. In high school, I thought I hated it, but now I realize that I thrive on being pushed to think.
The down side of honors classes, for me personally, actually consisted of two apparently contradictory parts. One thing I found when I got to college was that the honors classes didn't seem to matter to anyone. I didn't get anything special out of college because I had been in honors classes in high school. I didn't get to move ahead any faster. Now, maybe I did and just didn't realize it. Maybe my academic transition to college was pretty easy because I had honors classes in high school. But I guess I expected something more tangible, some noticeable edge. It simply didn't seem to be there. The flip side was honors classes actually worked against me in college in math and science. I was an English major so I was looking to take the easiest math and science classes I could in college, preferably something with the course number 101. No such luck. Honors math and science classes landed me in college level trigonometry and advanced chem courses; I wasn't allowed the 101 courses! I was not a happy camper!
In hindsight, I am glad I took honors classes in high school mostly because I enjoyed the challenge. As my students work on their honors applications, I often wonder what their reasons are. I hope if they get into honors classes, they are all they want them to be and do it for the right reasons. I also want them to know that if they apply and don't get in, they still have a promising future. Honors classes are wonderful if they are appreciated, but they do not define a student's potential.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Solidarity
I have been teaching in a public school for the past twenty years. I am a member of the union and I have tenure. I am also pretty high up on the seniority list. I am incredibly fortunate to be teaching in an excellent school district that has a pretty stable balance sheet; supportive, involved parents; and hard-working students who consistently score well on standardized tests. I am hardly unaware of my blessings. I don't really have too many issues being part of the union. I think that there are many times having union protection is a good thing for teachers. There is increasing financial pressure on school districts to get more bang for their taxpayer buck; unionized teachers can sleep a little easier at night knowing that they won't be unjustly let go so a district can save money. Some teachers know this and are grateful for it and are consummate professionals and will continue to be the very best teachers they can possible be. Some teachers, on the other hand, know they can't be easily let go and decide to rest on their laurels and can easily get away with doing very little work. These are the sub-standard teachers referenced by all the education reformers of late.
The teachers' unions have reacted passionately to the film Waiting for Superman, and rightly so. However, I also wish the unions would acknowledge some of the truths exposed in this film. One local president wrote, "The movie depicts our public schools in shambles and loaded with incompetent teachers." He is correct -- the movie does indeed do that. But to say that the depiction is false, that there are not public schools in shambles and that there are not incompetent teachers is akin to hiding one's head in the sand. No one associated with Waiting for Superman has said that ALL public schools are in shambles or ALL teachers are incompetent. The film does, however, expose the dirty little secret that when those bad schools and bad teachers do exist, the union membership should rally 'round their own and protect them. Personally, I am proud to leap up and defend my esteemed colleagues, but I am tired of having to stand in solidarity with some teachers who, quite frankly, suck. The president referenced above also wrote, " would make evaluations of teachers a comprehensive, complicated, and time-consuming process. Moreover, it would generally be based on student test scores." This sounds to me like there is an objection by the unions to thorough evaluations of teachers. Rather than the evaluations being "comprehensive", is it be preferable that they be quick and dirty? Teacher evaluations SHOULD be comprehensive and thorough and take into consideration many aspects of education. And while I disagree that students' test scores should be the end-all and be-all piece of data that determines a teacher's effectiveness, I see nothing wrong with multiple forms of data from tests being used to help determine a teacher's overall effectiveness in conjunction with other things, including multiple observations in the classroom by the principal, parent input, student input, and colleagues' input. But I'm betting the unions don't want any of that, either. It is much easier to leave teacher evaluations based on one classroom visit every other year. Surely one can see just how wonderful an educator is based on that amount of data (read: sarcasm).
I can't believe I am the only tenured teacher who is part of a union who feels this way. The bottom line is bad teachers make ALL teachers look bad, and I, for one, don't want to be lumped in with that lot of people who call themselves educators. I work very hard to keep my teaching relevant, and like any good teacher, I also recognize that I will always have much to learn and I'm not afraid of that (that's what life-long learning is all about). I would like to see the unions continue their wonderful support of deserving teachers but also acknowledge that the rotten apples are ruining the whole bunch of us. To me, recognizing that some educators need to be out of the classroom will show real strength from the unions; it is the ignoring of this fact that makes the unions weak.
The teachers' unions have reacted passionately to the film Waiting for Superman, and rightly so. However, I also wish the unions would acknowledge some of the truths exposed in this film. One local president wrote, "The movie depicts our public schools in shambles and loaded with incompetent teachers." He is correct -- the movie does indeed do that. But to say that the depiction is false, that there are not public schools in shambles and that there are not incompetent teachers is akin to hiding one's head in the sand. No one associated with Waiting for Superman has said that ALL public schools are in shambles or ALL teachers are incompetent. The film does, however, expose the dirty little secret that when those bad schools and bad teachers do exist, the union membership should rally 'round their own and protect them. Personally, I am proud to leap up and defend my esteemed colleagues, but I am tired of having to stand in solidarity with some teachers who, quite frankly, suck. The president referenced above also wrote, "
I can't believe I am the only tenured teacher who is part of a union who feels this way. The bottom line is bad teachers make ALL teachers look bad, and I, for one, don't want to be lumped in with that lot of people who call themselves educators. I work very hard to keep my teaching relevant, and like any good teacher, I also recognize that I will always have much to learn and I'm not afraid of that (that's what life-long learning is all about). I would like to see the unions continue their wonderful support of deserving teachers but also acknowledge that the rotten apples are ruining the whole bunch of us. To me, recognizing that some educators need to be out of the classroom will show real strength from the unions; it is the ignoring of this fact that makes the unions weak.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Don't Pass the Buck
As a teacher, it would be so easy to sit back and throw my hands in the air whenever I encounter a roadblock to educating my students. I will admit that I have never taught in a school that has a high number of low-income students or in a district that has been significantly strapped for cash. But I can say this: I have taught students who are very unmotivated to learn. I have taught students who are performing significantly below grade level. I have taught students who have had to work through undiagnosed or neglected learning disabilities. I have taught students whose don't care one bit about their child's education. I have taught students who have a crappy home life and can't do projects or homework at home. I have worked in a classroom with one window and no air conditioning where the room temperature was close to 90 degrees. I have worked with administrators who have not supported me. I have been forced to teach without things I need -- enough novels or paper to make copies or a television or an overhead projector. While I may not work in a "bad" school or a "poor" school, I have had my share of road blocks and stumbling blocks put in the way of my ability to teach my students. However, every time I encounter a barrier, I refuse to give up. Good teachers don't give up under adverse conditions. Good teachers don't say, "I don't have kids who care. I don't have parents who care. I don't have administrators who support me. I don't have the supplies I need. I don't have the conditions I need. My district doesn't have the money. I can't teach these kids." This, to me, is passing the buck. At the end of the school day, there is only one factor I have control over, and that is myself. I can choose to say, "Well, this student clearly has a learning disability but no IEP so I don't know how anyone expects me to teach her," or I can say, "Well, this student clearly has a learning disability and no IEP so I guess I'll have to figure out what I can do to help her the best way I can." I can choose to say, "The parents don't make their kids get off their video games and do homework, and if the parents don't care then I don't care and there's nothing I can do," or I can say, "The parents don't make their kids get off their video games and do homework, so since they don't care, I will be the one who cares and has expectations for these kids." I refuse to pass the buck and say I can't be a good teacher because there are too many adversities. Teachers are accountable to themselves first. If teachers hold themselves accountable to themselves, then they will be able to side-step the obstacles and no one will be able to say they are bad teachers. This is what being a professional is all about.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Waiting for Superman
I had the opportunity to see the documentary Waiting for Superman last week before it was officially released and I can see why it is generating a lot of controversy. Here is my take on the movie, for what it's worth.
I think that this film is causing a stir within the education community because, frankly, it exposes the dirty little secrets in education that no one wants exposed. Here's the cold, hard truth: there are bad schools and bad teachers out there. Plenty of them. And yes, I willingly and gladly admit that there are also lots of great schools and great teachers. That being said, there are far too many rotten ones. I have been teaching for a little over 20 years and I count myself among the good teachers (not the great teachers). I keep up with best practices. I am actively involved in my own personal professional development. I differentiate my instruction as much as possible for my students. I try to integrate technology into my instruction and my students' learning experiences. I take time to get to know my students personally. I communicate regularly with the parents of my students. And I enjoy doing all of these things. Yes, it's work, but it has its rewards -- happy, involved students and parents, AND the kids LEARN! So now that I've justified why I can can consider myself one of the good guys, I'm going to say something that's not too popular: I'm tired of having to stand in solidarity with the bad teachers and defend them just because we're all teachers. I am tired of seeing the lazy teachers do the bare minimum and get away with it AND get the same benefits as I do in the form of salary. I'm not going to blame anyone for this (like unions or administrators) except for the teachers themselves. However, I'm pretty sure that the lousy, lazy teachers don't recognize themselves, so how can they fix themselves? Good question. Regardless, it is time that the bad teachers were outted and that's what this movie does. Some say it teacher bashes; I think it bashes the teachers who deserve to be bashed.
Another criticism of the movie is its pro-charter school stance. I admit, it does show charter schools in a positive light, especially in comparison to the public schools that are profiled. However, Guggenheim doesn't ignore the fact that there are bad charter schools; nor does he ignore the fact that there are good public schools. Instead, I think he does a good job of pointing out that the good, popular charter schools are so desirable because they can do things that traditional public schools cannot. They can require parental involvement. They can increase the school day and the school year. They can boot a student who doesn't comply with discipline policies. I never once got the impression that Guggenheim wanted to do away with traditional public schools and have only charter schools available. Instead, he offers up some of the strategies and policies that have had success in charter schools for possible adoption by traditional public schools -- IF teachers and their contracts will allow those changes to occur. It's a tough sell since it often demands more of already heavily-worked teachers. But the funny thing is that the best teachers will take on the extra work if they know that students and parents are also on board, and it is all worth it in the end to see the kids succeed. I've been looking at KIPP schools in Houston for a few years now, and I'd love the chance to work at a KIPP school. I was glad to see KIPP get a nod in Waiting for Superman.
This movie doesn't directly address the roles of parents and administrators in children's academic success, but I'm guessing Guggenheim wasn't interested in making a 4 - 6 hour documentary! They are two sets of educational stakeholders that can play a huge part in how kids fare at school and their contributions can't be forgotten. All parents need to be as involved with their children's education as the parents in Waiting for Superman. Kids first learn to value their education when their parents value it for them. Administrators need to be willing to stand strong against the storm that may be whipped up by calling a bad teacher out and starting the remediation process as set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and getting rid of that teacher if that's what needs to be done.
The most important thing this movie can do is open dialogue between all educational stakeholders. It does no good to spend any time pointing fingers at unions/tenure/parents/teachers/students/charter schools/politicians/etc. Instead, everyone needs to acknowledge where weaknesses and deficits are in educating our children, discover what works and where the strengths are, and then continue to do what works and fix or end what doesn't work. Mediocrity on any level is bad for everyone who cares about educating children.
I think that this film is causing a stir within the education community because, frankly, it exposes the dirty little secrets in education that no one wants exposed. Here's the cold, hard truth: there are bad schools and bad teachers out there. Plenty of them. And yes, I willingly and gladly admit that there are also lots of great schools and great teachers. That being said, there are far too many rotten ones. I have been teaching for a little over 20 years and I count myself among the good teachers (not the great teachers). I keep up with best practices. I am actively involved in my own personal professional development. I differentiate my instruction as much as possible for my students. I try to integrate technology into my instruction and my students' learning experiences. I take time to get to know my students personally. I communicate regularly with the parents of my students. And I enjoy doing all of these things. Yes, it's work, but it has its rewards -- happy, involved students and parents, AND the kids LEARN! So now that I've justified why I can can consider myself one of the good guys, I'm going to say something that's not too popular: I'm tired of having to stand in solidarity with the bad teachers and defend them just because we're all teachers. I am tired of seeing the lazy teachers do the bare minimum and get away with it AND get the same benefits as I do in the form of salary. I'm not going to blame anyone for this (like unions or administrators) except for the teachers themselves. However, I'm pretty sure that the lousy, lazy teachers don't recognize themselves, so how can they fix themselves? Good question. Regardless, it is time that the bad teachers were outted and that's what this movie does. Some say it teacher bashes; I think it bashes the teachers who deserve to be bashed.
Another criticism of the movie is its pro-charter school stance. I admit, it does show charter schools in a positive light, especially in comparison to the public schools that are profiled. However, Guggenheim doesn't ignore the fact that there are bad charter schools; nor does he ignore the fact that there are good public schools. Instead, I think he does a good job of pointing out that the good, popular charter schools are so desirable because they can do things that traditional public schools cannot. They can require parental involvement. They can increase the school day and the school year. They can boot a student who doesn't comply with discipline policies. I never once got the impression that Guggenheim wanted to do away with traditional public schools and have only charter schools available. Instead, he offers up some of the strategies and policies that have had success in charter schools for possible adoption by traditional public schools -- IF teachers and their contracts will allow those changes to occur. It's a tough sell since it often demands more of already heavily-worked teachers. But the funny thing is that the best teachers will take on the extra work if they know that students and parents are also on board, and it is all worth it in the end to see the kids succeed. I've been looking at KIPP schools in Houston for a few years now, and I'd love the chance to work at a KIPP school. I was glad to see KIPP get a nod in Waiting for Superman.
This movie doesn't directly address the roles of parents and administrators in children's academic success, but I'm guessing Guggenheim wasn't interested in making a 4 - 6 hour documentary! They are two sets of educational stakeholders that can play a huge part in how kids fare at school and their contributions can't be forgotten. All parents need to be as involved with their children's education as the parents in Waiting for Superman. Kids first learn to value their education when their parents value it for them. Administrators need to be willing to stand strong against the storm that may be whipped up by calling a bad teacher out and starting the remediation process as set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and getting rid of that teacher if that's what needs to be done.
The most important thing this movie can do is open dialogue between all educational stakeholders. It does no good to spend any time pointing fingers at unions/tenure/parents/teachers/students/charter schools/politicians/etc. Instead, everyone needs to acknowledge where weaknesses and deficits are in educating our children, discover what works and where the strengths are, and then continue to do what works and fix or end what doesn't work. Mediocrity on any level is bad for everyone who cares about educating children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)