Nanny State Gone Wild—More Stupid Rules to Make School More Unpleasant

Image from Flickr, by KazVorpal

Last week, in her column “The Answer Sheet,” Valerie Straus listed “eight weird things schools banned this year.” Some of the bans were absurd overreactions to freak accidents that were unlikely to ever occur again and that could be averted much more simply through greater caution by students and teachers. For example, frilly socks were banned at Kingshold Primary School in Gloucester, England, after a child tripped over her dangles and fell, according to the Independent. In another bizarre example, Castle View School in Essex, England, prohibited triangular flapjacks (in England, flapjacks are hard cookies, not pancakes) after one was tossed and hit a student in the eye, the independent reported. To “solve” this dangerous problem, school officials are now requiring that flapjacks be square—apparently these officials had cut geometry class the day they talked about how squares have more sharp corners than triangles.

Other bans stemmed from the hysteria over bullying, (here and here), and are equally misguided. The Eagle-Tribune wrote that the Wyndham School District in New Hampshire, for example, has banned dodge ball and other “human target” games as a way to reduce bullying. Yet bullying (as well as run of the mill teasing, harassing and meanness) can occur in virtually any game or sport. A child can choose to slide tackle in soccer out of poor sportsmanship, vindictiveness or outright hatred of the victim. A batter or runner can be hit by the ball in baseball, kickball or softball for similar reasons. A person jumping rope can be deliberately tripped by the rope turners. A person playing hopscotch can be tripped by pebbles or a banana peel tossed onto the playing field. Where does it end?

However, another way of parsing this perplexing ban is that dodge ball does not just provide an opportunity for a few bullies to gang up on one kid. It also provides an opportunity for a kid with any grievance whatsoever, including having been victimized by bullies, to target his tormentor in return. However, it seems like Wyndham School District is assuming that the victims of bullying truly are the feeble weaklings their tormentors say they are and, therefore, lack the capability of fighting back on the playing field (or the common sense to opt out of contact sports in which their tormentors are playing).

The other great hysteria around children—molestation (see here, and here)—has led to the banning of adult hugging in St. Mary’s County Public Schools, in Maryland, according to Southern Maryland News. According to the ban, adults may hug any child they wish, as long as it’s their own, but better keep their slimy, pervy hands off of everyone else’s children. While this might seem a prudent rule for teachers of middle and high school students to avoid any perception of prurient interest in the students, the situation is significantly different for elementary school teachers, whose students have much greater need for regular physical reassurances that they are loved and cared for. Personally, I do not want my son in a kindergarten class with an icy robot teacher who tells him to put on his own bandage, wipe his own tears and just go grab a hug from his friend whenever he’s feeling insecure or sad.

Speaking of prurient interest, thank God Kenilworth Junior High school, in Petaluma, California, has had the hindsight to ban girls’ leggings (stretch pants) which, when they bend over and the fabric stretches, provide more hindsight for their classmates than the fashion police feel is tolerable. ABC News suggested it was causing “distractions” in the classroom (i.e., boys, and no doubt some girls, too, were more interested in their classmates’ butts than their history lessons). This reminds me of my own school days, when only the most popular brands of tight-fitting pants and shorts were banned for similar reasons. Of course this begs the question: if teenagers are more interested in each other’s butts than the curriculum, shouldn’t something be done to make the curriculum more exciting and meaningful to them? It also highlights a fact that most adults and educators are constantly trying to suppress or deny: Teenagers are sexual beings. They have lusts, like adults. Banning one particular style of clothing will not change this. They will still be titillated by their peers’ looks and think about how cute so and so is, even after banning every other provocative and popular article of clothing for our students own protection.

Every generation comes up with its own popular genre of music and older generations routinely poo poo it as trash. . . When I was young. . . that was real music back then! Lawrence Welk and Frank Sinatra kick ass on Elvis and Frankie. But wait, what about the 60s? Music then was revolutionary. It was political. It was part of the anti-war movement, and today’s music is just a bunch of misogynistic, homophobic, violence-glorifying dreck. And why should our schools promote such anti-social messages? Thus, Arcadia High School in Southern California has banned Lady Gaga’s “Starstruck,” as well as 19 other songs at prom, because they are degrading to women.

While there is certainly some logic and perhaps even ethical basis for avoiding overtly misogynistic music, it is, in reality, completely arbitrary and pointless. The overwhelming majority of popular music throughout history has been mindless dreck if you really pay attention to the lyrics, including during the “revolutionary” 60s, when the majority of songs were insipid odes to puppy love and rants about being jilted. And the 60s, as well as the 50s and most other generations have had a subset of music with antisocial, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and otherwise offensive lyrics (though sometimes the offensive lyrics are meant to be satirical). Banning 19 songs leaves the thousands of others that still violate whatever arbitrary moral guidelines the thought police have set.

St. Mary’s County Public schools has also banned birthday invitations so as to not make the uninvited kids feel bad. This reminds me of an administrator who said that kids’ names shouldn’t be written on the board to remind them they have detentions and that you should never tell a student he is failing because such forms of communication could humiliate students. It also reminds me about some anarchists in the 1990s who tried to create an End to Unhappiness Festival and movement.

Sorry folks, but unhappiness, embarrassment, feeling left out, and bad news are all unavoidable conditions of life. People die. Conflicts occur. Relationships end. Reformers make life harder for regular people.  . . “Daddy, where is Mommy?” . . . “Er, well son, she’s certainly not dead. You don’t have to worry about that. Absolutely not dead. Not in the slightest.  . . Hey, let’s make some birthday invitations.”

Obviously, as educators we have a responsibility to address academic and disciplinary matters with tact and appropriateness, including not deliberately humiliating a student. However, getting caught being naughty and earning an F are inherently embarrassing situations and, even if a teacher is tactful and appropriate in her response, a student may still end up feeling embarrassed. Likewise, does the school really believe that the uninvited kids aren’t going to find out about the party anyway and still feel bad?

All of these bans have far more to do with social control, prejudice and paranoia about lawsuits than protecting children. This is perhaps best illustrated by Strauss’ last example, where two students’ pictures were removed from the yearbook at White Cloud High School in Michigan because their “baby bumps” (i.e., pregnant bellies) “sent a bad message to other students. However, according to New York Magazine, Superintendent Barry Seabrook felt that the girls’ photos would be an advertisement that their abstinence-based sex education program was a failure. So much for “evidence-based” education reform.

Ending Bullying by Changing Its Name

 

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

A group of researchers commissioned by the American Education Research Association says that efforts to reduce bullying in school are hampered by the overuse and abuse of the term “bullying” and are calling for it to be replaced by the term “victimization,” according to a recent report in USA today.

Yeh, right. . .

When the Blackwater mercenary army was having image problems they changed their name to Xe and then again to Academi, innocent sounding names that couldn’t possibly have any connection with the slaughter of Iraqi civilians or martial law in New Orleans. Similarly, civilians commonly refer to their problems as “issues,” in a semantic shell game they hope will make them seem more together. So why not call bullying victimization and trust that unhappiness and suffering will cease to be a problem at schools?

The problem, according to the researchers, is that the term “bullying” is being used to describe everything from eye rolling to teasing to simply not wanting to be friends, thus obscuring educators’ ability to identify what is actually happening and respond appropriately and effectively. One researcher said that school employees have reported waiting for bullies to repeat their behaviors before intervening, in accordance with school policies that define bullying as “repeated” abuse.

They are correct that the term bullying has become meaningless, but changing the name to “victimization” will not solve the problem. A teacher who refuses to intervene in abusive behavior because it doesn’t seem to fit the school’s definition has other issues (oops, problems) hindering them, like fear of authority, passiveness, inability or unwillingness to act independently, lack of empathy or compassion, and/or personal biases. When a child is being taunted or teased, for example, why should it matter if the behavior fits a school’s definition or violates its code of conduct? It serves no productive or legitimate purpose at school, it is often disruptive of the learning environment, and it is likely making someone feel bad unnecessarily. Thus intervention is the rational and appropriate response.

There are many reasons why people victimize each other and why others allow it to happen. What we call it is not the biggest problem. Teachers may avoid intervening in an interaction occurring outside their classroom with students whom they do not know out of fear, or because they do not trust they will be supported by their administrators, or because they cannot leave their own students unattended, or because they are so swamped with work they don’t want to be bothered with the time and potential paperwork involved. Their own biases may prevent them from intervening (e.g., “boys will be boys” or “that kid is a sissy.”)

Nevertheless, it is a good thing that someone is challenging the misuse of the term “bullying.” Rolling eyes, disliking someone, and not being nice may feel disrespectful and offensive, but they are also relatively innocuous and sometimes reasonable behaviors and certainly not bullying. It is a lofty goal to expect everyone to always treat everybody with courtesy and respect, but not everyone is equipped nor ready to love their all their neighbors, let alone their enemies.

The Real Cheating Scandal Occurs Each Year At Every School in America

“The real cheating scandal that has been going on for years is that kids are being cheated out of meaningful learning by focusing on test scores. Standardized tests like the CRCT measure what matters least. . . Standardized tests are lousy measures of thinking. They assess some combination of (a) family wealth and (b) how much time has been diverted from real learning in order to make kids better at taking tests. Many smart kids, terrific teachers, and exciting schools have lousy test scores. Many not-so-smart kids, mediocre teachers, and awful schools have impressive test scores.”—Alfie Kohn

There are several other things measured by standardized tests that tell us nothing about the quality of our schools and teachers (but much about the irrationality and dysfunction of our society). For example, they also measure children’s resilience and composure. Kids who do not panic under stress tend to do better than those suffer from test anxiety, something that depends far more on upbringing and the culture in the home than on anything teachers bring to the classroom.  

Children’s anxiety should be taken more seriously than it is, as it seems to be growing and it reflects poor emotional wellbeing and may be an indicator of longer term problems that could diminish their future success and health. It is also, to a large extent, a product of the socioeconomic reality in which children are living. The majority of parents are working longer hours, putting in more labor per hour, and enjoying less material security than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations, thus increasing their stress and anxiety—something that does not go unnoticed by their children.

High stakes tests also measure whether students give a damn. Amazingly, while there is no rational reason for children to take most of the tests seriously (few have any effect on their ability to graduate or get into college), most children do try to do well. This is said testament to the success of the public education system in molding compliant, passive citizens who do as they are told and follow the rules without questioning the logic or costs to society.

Kohn also argues, like many critics of the education reform movement, that standardized testing cheats children out of a “real” education, by taking away time from content, teachable moments, critical thinking, arts, science and physical education. Of course the credibility of this argument depends on the one’s definition of “real” education. In the eyes of employers, standardized tests do a fine job in support of real education because the primary goal of education is to train and sort individuals for their future roles in the economy. Since the test scores are most influenced by children’s socioeconomic backgrounds, they also help maintain the class distinctions in our society.

If a “real” education involves critical thinking, intelligent questioning, creativity, independence of thought, courage to challenge orthodoxies and rules and an intrinsic love of learning, then we need to move away from most testing, as well as the focus on standards and getting the “right” answer.

Dennis Bartels, director of San Francisco’s Exploratorium, points out that critical thinking requires the ability to ask “juicy” questions about phenomena (e.g., questions about cause and effect) and a tolerance for failure (experiments do not always yield meaningful results and scientists often learn more from their mistakes than from the things that went as expected). He argues that informal learning environments, like museums, tolerate failure better than schools do (e.g., the wrong answer in class results in a lower grade or looking foolish in front of peers). Even without standardized testing, schools do tend to emphasize getting the right answers (consider all the “cook-booky,” proof-of-concept high school lab activities in which there is only one correct result and the smart students know this answer before they have even done the experiment). Furthermore, with the increasing obsession with testing, standards and “college-readiness,” schools have little time for students to ask and test such questions in the first place.

The real cheating scandal is not just that the obsession with testing is cheating our children out of a decent education. The entire public education system, with its emphasis on making children career- or college-ready, its obsession with accountability and standards, its overcrowded classrooms and its overworked and underpaid teachers, and the frantic pace to get through everything before the April exams, is an anxiety-provoking and intellectually and socially stultifying experience.

Then again, if the purpose of education truly is to make us ready for a life of obedience and passivity at work and college, then perhaps the testing mania is the right prescription for preparing kids for their future lives.

Brown’s Budget Shuffle: Something From Nothing is Still Nothing

"Equal treatment for children in unequal situations is not justice"—Gov. Jerry Brown, California (quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle)

Gov. Brown is correct—funding poor schools the same as affluent schools is not only unjust, it is pedagogically irrational.  Poor children have greater educational needs, while their parents have far less to donate to school fundraisers. Funding them equally only guarantees unequal outcomes. Yet his solution—reallocating revenues from wealthier schools to poorer school—is neither just nor rational.

None of California’s schools currently receives adequate funding. The state has slashed over $20 billion from K-12 education over the past five years and none of this will be restored under the state’s new “millionaire’s” tax. Furthermore, basic aid school districts (the so-called affluent districts that receive only the “basic” aid from the state because they have higher than average property tax bases) have already lost 90% of the funding they once received from the state. Therefore, taking away scarce resources from these schools only serves to make them more like the state’s low income schools.

While it is true that affluent schools have fewer needs than lower income schools, they were not receiving sufficient funding from the state or local property taxes even before the economic meltdown and draconian budget cuts that followed. Consequently, they have relied on fundraising to make up some of the difference, something they can do with greater ease and success than lower income schools, since the parents tend to be wealthier and have more disposable income. Yet even this hasn’t prevented basic aid schools from losing counselors, librarians and nurses; increasing class sizes to 35 students per teacher (or higher); imposing out-of-pocket fees on teachers for health insurance; and freezing or cutting wages. Furthermore, even within basic aid districts there are often low income schools with student demographics similar to poor, inner city schools. Reducing their funding because they happen to be in an “affluent” basic aid district would end up harming the lower income students Brown’s plan is intended to help.

Of course it is important to provide low income schools with additional funding, over and above what the affluent ones receive, because of their greater needs. However, this must be accomplished through increased tax revenues, not by ripping off other schools. Yet increased school funding, alone, will not solve the myriad ways in which poverty impacts educational outcomes. To really close the achievement gap, poor kids in poor schools need relief from their poverty so they aren’t coming to school hungry and suffering from stress and untreated medical conditions. Their parents need relief from poverty before they even have children, since poverty increases the chances children will be born premature, with low birth weight, and suffer from stress, malnutrition and environmental toxins, each of which contribute to cognitive impairment and learning disabilities.

Short of this, low income schools need large infusions of cash—far more than they would receive under the Brown plan. They need enough revenue to lower class sizes and hire extra teachers and reading specialists. Low income schools need full-time nurses or on-site clinics to care for uninsured children and reduce the amount of class time lost to treatable and preventable illnesses. Low income schools need staff and resources to provide adult education and English language support for parents. They need extra funding for after school programs so that children aren’t watching television or getting into trouble or hurt when classes end. They need mental health specialists to help students suffering from stress, anxiety and other common mental health problems that often go undiagnosed or treated in poor children.

If the schools truly are public, then parents should not have to pay more out of pocket for fundraisers and benefits, in addition to what they contribute through their taxes. If they were adequately funded, there would be much less need for this.

This is another major problem with school finance. Affluent families are affluent, in part, because they can shelter much of their income from taxation (e.g., deductions and write-offs) and many do not want to pay a penny for the education of other people’s children. By maintaining tax rates at their current levels (which are far lower than they were during the Reagan era and earlier), the affluent can continue amass great quantities of wealth, while getting an excellent free education for their children at the exclusive public schools in their wealthy enclaves. They can then supplement their schools’ mediocre budgets with tax deductible donations that further lower their tax liabilities, while increasing the education quality gap to the benefit of their own children. Thus, they (and their legislators) are unlikely to accept Brown’s proposal (or the tax increases necessary to put a serious dent in the problem).