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.

(Not) Ending Bullying Through Exaggeration and Misinformation

Mean Girls (Image from Flickr, by Combined Media)

First the good news: With the increased media coverage and public attention we’ve seen over the past decade, bullying is on the decline in some parts of the U.S. In California, for example, the school bullying rate has been reduced to one-third that of the rest of the nation.  

Despite this promising statistic, my colleagues and I were recently informed at an anti-bullying workshop that bullying is on the rise nationwide. The presenter did not provide any references or documentation to support her claim. Instead, she showed us a heartbreaking video about bullying victims who had committed suicide and told us that 3,000 teens commit suicide each year, implying that teen suicide is primarily caused by bullying.

There is now a sizable anti-bullying movement and with it a growing network of nonprofits and community-based organizations devoted to stamping out the problem. Education can help reduce bullying, but only when the information is accurate and reliable. Exaggeration and misinformation may lead to larger donations and greater media attention, but they also unnecessarily fuel parents’ and teachers’ existing anxieties and fears, while drawing resources and attention away from other threats to children’s wellbeing.

Youth Suicide Rates are the Lowest Ever Recorded

All teen suicides are tragic, but not all teen suicides can be linked to bullying. Moreover, teen suicide is on the decline, with a rate today that is less than half what it was 40 years ago. It is also far lower than it is for adults. Only 1 in 2500 teens (13-19) kill themselves, whereas 1 in 900 adults do. The suicide rate for 10-14 year-olds was only 0.9 per 100,000 in 2007, and only 6.9 per 100,000 for 15-19 year-olds, according to NIH data. However, the suicide rate jumped to 12.7 per 100,000 for 20-24 year-olds, well after kids have left high school, suggesting that factors other than school bullying are at play. For example, chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can result from physical, emotional or sexual abuse growing up, and can manifest long after moving away from home. Indeed, youth advocate Mike Males says that a history of living in an abusive family is a far more common cause of teen suicide than bullying.

How Prevalent is Bullying?

Even when bullying does not result in suicide, it can still be a traumatizing experience that negatively impacts self-esteem and academic success. Good Education reports that 160,000 students avoid school each day because of fears of being bullied. Furthermore, almost 40% of high school freshmen report daily bullying, while 70% of all high school students report regular online bullying according to Good.

These are shockingly high numbers, but they do not tell the whole story.

If 40% of high school freshmen are experiencing vicious daily bullying, we should be seeing an epidemic of suicides, depression and low self-esteem as a result. Yet none of these problems comes close to 40%. As mentioned above, the suicide rate for 15-19 year olds is extremely low (0.0069%), while the depression rate for 13-18 year olds is 5.6%, according to a 2006 study by E. Jane Costello and colleagues that tested the teen depression “epidemic” hypothesis.

There are several ways to explain this paradox.

Some victims of bullying have the friends, social support and self-confidence to survive the experience without lasting trauma. Some, no doubt, shake it off and move on without letting it bother them. Others may feel bad for a little while and then continue with their lives.

Not every child has this capability, of course. Many are already isolated and alienated and have low self-esteem before the bullying even begins. This not only diminishes their resiliency, but it is also sometimes the reason they are targeted by bullies in the first place. Indeed, it is likely that some of the bullying victims who do attempt suicide may be suffering from other problems in addition to bullying, like a lack of emotional support or outright abuse at home.

Another explanation for this paradox is that those surveyed used an overly broad interpretation of bullying that encompasses all forms of teasing, criticizing and other unpleasant social interactions. Everyone experiences tactless or insensitive comments from time to time that can be very hurtful. We have all received unsolicited criticism (sometimes accurate) that made us feel bad. But these are not bullying and calling them such does not help reduce bullying nor make children any safer.

Bullying involves the repeated and deliberate abuse of an individual by exploiting a real or perceived power imbalance, like when a larger kid regularly knocks the books out of the hands of a smaller one, or when popular students repeatedly spread rumors in order to humiliate a less popular student. Intellectual bullying can occur when an “A” student refuses to let a teammate participate because he is perceived to be dumber and might mess up their team grade.

This definition of bullying does not include many behaviors that are equally dangerous or traumatizing. Homophobia, sexism and racism, for example, can be expressed in ways that do not directly target any individual, yet they can still have a negative impact on the self-esteem and physical safety of individuals. For example, a student who publicly proclaims that “homosexuality is gross,” has not bullied any individual student, but the message that is heard by everyone is that there is something wrong being gay, something that can undermine the self-esteem and security of gay students. If teachers allow this  to occur without intervening, it could escalate into bullying or homophobic violence.

Yet anti-gay bullying is NOT the biggest threat facing gay youth, according to Mike Males. A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) of young gay men who had contemplated suicide found that the most important reasons for their suicidal thoughts were drug and alcohol abuse by their parents, poverty, unemployment and childhood sexual or physical abuse.

Rather than obsessing about bullying per se, it would be more productive for educators to learn to recognize when students are having emotional or social problems and provide the appropriate support or interventions, regardless of the cause. It should not matter why a child is being beat up. It is still the responsibility of school personnel to intercede. Likewise, a good teacher should take action whenever she hears racist or sexist comments, as well as homophobic or bullying comments, not only to maintain a productive academic environment, but to help all students feel safe and welcome in the classroom.

Cut Class, Lose Welfare—MI’s Latest Attempt to Bail Itself Out on the Backs of the Poor

Get to Class, Punk (Image from Flickr, by DonkeyHotey)

A new Michigan law (effective October 1) requires all children to be in school full time or the entire family will become ineligible to receive welfare benefits, the Detroit News reports. Furthermore, all new cash-assistance applicants will now be required to prove school enrollment for their children and good attendance in order to receive aid, while families that have lost benefits due to truancy will have to prove their child has attended school for 21 consecutive days before they can regain eligibility.

Of course it is difficult to succeed in school if you do not go to class and truancy certainly hurts schools’ finances since revenues are based on average daily attendance. But it is cruel and stupid to strip welfare benefits from an entire family, potentially harming the health, safety and educational outcomes of younger siblings, because of the behavior of one child, particularly when truancies are often unavoidable products of poverty.

Many lower income children miss class for untreated medical conditions. Without health insurance or resources for preventable care, minor treatable conditions can worsen to the point that students are in too much pain to attend class. They may even require hospitalization. Lower income children also have higher rates of asthma, diabetes, anemia and other chronic conditions that can lead to long-term absences or hospitalization, particularly when treatment is out of reach. Even “excusable” medical absences can become “cuts” if they last longer than a few days and a doctor’s note cannot be obtained (which is not uncommon when the student cannot afford to see a doctor in the first place).

Lower income kids also sometimes stay home from school to care for younger siblings or older relatives so their parents can go to work. While this is unfortunate for the children who are missing out on school and being forced to grow up more quickly than their peers, it is also a product of poverty. Affluent families are more likely to be able to afford day care, home care, private preschool and other resources for family members in need of supervision or care.

Some students cut class to avoid bullies or rival gangs. This is rarely seen as an “excusable” absence by schools. However, from the perspective of the child it may be the only reasonable choice when the alternative of coming to school includes the risk of injury or even death. Students also report cutting class because they live far away from school and cannot secure consistent transportation to school. Hunger, depression and other mental health issues can also keep some kids from attending school regularly.

In none of these examples is the threat of losing welfare benefits likely to change the behavior.

Of course there are plenty of kids who are truant purely to avoid the stress of classwork or to party with their friends. There are also plenty of kids who are truant because their parents keep them away from school for family vacations or social events. It is understandable and perhaps even justifiable to hold these parents accountable for their children’s unexcused absences, but the state of Michigan is unlikely to invest in sufficient social workers to visit every home of every truant student to assess the actual causes and legitimacy of the truancies.

More importantly, if the issue truly is children’s wellbeing, a one-size fits all punitive approach cannot succeed and will most likely have the opposite effect. Since the majority of chronic truancies are related to poverty, stripping poor families of their meager welfare benefits will only worsen their poverty, while completely ignoring root causes of truancy like inadequate transportation, poor access to health care, gang violence, lack of child care for siblings, hunger and depression.

55% of Oakland’s African American Males At Risk of Not Graduating

New research by the Urban Strategies Council of Oakland found that 55% of African American male students in the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) were at risk of not graduating due to high suspension rates, chronic absences and poor academic performance. This compares with a still high rate of 37.5% for the general student population, according to the Bay Citizen.

Of those who were not on track to graduate on time, 73% were chronically absent in elementary school, missing at least 10% of school days. This parallels findings from a Baltimore study (see here). The same percentage had been suspended at least once in middle school.

It is easy to blame schools, teachers and parents for the problem. Indeed, the Bay Citizen quoted Hedy Chang, director of Attendance Works, who said that “five-year-olds don’t miss school without an adult knowing at home,” as if the parent was keeping the child home for illegitimate reasons. Yet, high absenteeism is not primarily due to irresponsible parents who simply keep their kids home or don’t monitor their attendance. Rather, high absenteeism correlates with poverty and lack of health insurance or access to affordable care, suggesting that poor kids stay home more because they are not receiving preventative or prompt curative care, leading to longer and more severe infectious and chronic illnesses.

Of course, at the higher grades, students sometimes cut class for other reasons, like preferring to be out on the streets or with friends, to avoid gangs or bullies, or because they are so behind in grades or academic skills that school has become a traumatic and unpleasant experience for them.

Most of these problems, likewise, cannot be directly blamed on parents, teachers or even the students themselves. Poverty creates an achievement gap before children have even entered kindergarten (see here and here). The achievement gap only gets worse as children progress through the system, with affluent students continuing to reap benefits like summer travel, enriching extracurricular activities and better health and nutrition that are denied to their lower income peers. Failure and frustration are thus built into the system and routine for many students and cutting class could be seen as a rational response to the embarrassment, powerlessness or frustration of being stuck in classes in which one is lost, confused and has little chance of passing.

Gangs are also a product of socioeconomic conditions and a problem that can be significantly reduced or eliminated by eradicating poverty and providing jobs and extracurricular activities for youth. Until that happens, students who must cross through rival gang territory in order to get to school could be provided with transportation alternatives that bypass the dangerous turf or reassigned to other schools.

Bullying is also a societal problem. It occurs at home and in the streets and playgrounds. Politicians, bosses and community leaders also engage in it. Until it as addressed at these levels, children and adults will continue to see it as a normal (and effective) way to interact and achieve one’s goals and the problem will persist. However, schools can do a lot more to reduce bullying on campus by better educating their staffs and creating and enforcing disciplinary policies that treat it as a serious offense.

High suspension rates are also related to socioeconomic factors. While racial bias probably plays a role in the higher suspension rates for African American males among certain teachers and administrators, it is unlikely the main cause (see Parsing the Black-White Suspension Gap for more analysis of this topic). Rather, lower rates of academic success (remember, the achievement gap is already in place before students even start school) likely create a frustrating academic experience that contributes to disruptive behavior. Also, the middle class culture, mores and expectations of school often come into conflict with the culture, mores and expectations of lower income and non-white communities, leading to the unnecessary escalation of conflicts and more severe punishment for students.

Oakland students of color, particularly black males, indeed have an appallingly high risk of not graduating on time from high school. However, if we really want to see improvements, we need to stop scapegoating the parents, teachers and children themselves and start addressing the socioeconomic factors that are the primary cause of the problem.

California Seeks to Legislatively Cut Suspensions

In the 2009-10 academic year there were over 750,000 suspensions in California schools, Kathryn Baron wrote in a piece for Topics in Education last week. Meanwhile, Suspended Education in California, a recent analysis of federal data by The Civil Rights Project at UCLA, found that 20% of all African American students were suspended at least once in 2009-10, compared to one of every 14 Latino students and one of every 17 white students.

In the wake of such revelations, the California Legislature’s education committees recently approved six new bills to cut down expulsions and suspension. SB 1235, sponsored by Darryl Steinberg, would require schools with suspension rates above 25% for any ethnic group to implement an alternative consequence that still holds the student accountable while keeping them in school. (A list of the other bills can be seen here).

While it is certainly desirable to reduce inequities in the education system and to reduce suspension rates in general, it is also important to understand why suspension rates have climbed so high and why there are such large racial disparities, rather than cobbling together a few knee jerk laws that avoid the actual causes and do little to make schools safer or equitable.

Steinberg notes that kids who get suspended and miss school fall further behind and thus have a greater chance of dropping out. However, this is a correlation, not necessarily a cause. It may be true that students who have been suspended are less likely to graduate, but one or two suspensions are unlikely to cause a student to flunk out. A more likely scenario is that the student is already behind in credits and is struggling in his current classes. He may be reading well below grade level and have other problems that make it difficult to focus during class time, contributing both to behavior problems and poor academic success.

There are many alternatives to suspension and expulsion, the most effective of which is probably prevention. A lot can be done to create academic cultures in which students want to learn and understand and internalize the behaviors necessary for their academic success. Sadly, this does not exist at many of schools, particularly low income schools.

While there are many reasons for this, the Apartheid nature of our schools is a major influence. Some school are filled predominantly with middle class students who read at grade level, do their homework and study, and who tend not to get in very much trouble. Then there are the low income schools which are often filled with students who are reading far below grade level, who are behind academically, and who have trouble sitting still and focusing for extended periods. Not surprisingly, these students tend to have more trouble following the rules and get in trouble more often.

While there seems to be no political will to break up these segregated schools or to reassign students in a more equitable manner, there are a lot of things that administrators could do to create and support a more academic culture without relying on suspensions. For example, supporting teachers promptly and effectively when informed of a disciplinary problem can help maintain a positive classroom environment and prevent disruptions from growing out of control. Being visible on campus during passing periods, lunch and recess can help them to identify and stop bullying or other inappropriate behavior before they get out of hand. School rules and policies can be reinforced through assemblies, classroom visits and school media.

Unfortunately, these things often do not occur at schools. I have seen administrators ignore drugs and fights (or allow students back in class the same or next day). In one school I was at, after a homophobic assault and melee, the gay students were suspended and the only administrative or school wide response was an email by the principal recommending that teachers send their students to a voluntary debriefing by the student government. (For other examples of administrators behaving badly, click here or here).

Baron points to the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) program as a model for changing student behavior and improving the school climate. She describes a principal who spent time calming an out-of-control student who wouldn’t stop cursing and then listening to her, learning that her mother had just abandoned the family.  This is what schools should be doing all along, but often can’t because they don’t have the human resources. It takes time to listen. More importantly, the girl should have been identified and referred to her counselor or a school safety advocate (if either were available) before she lost control, something that is also difficult with all the budget and staffing cuts of the past few years.

Nevertheless, this sort of response by the adults at a school is far more likely to prevent school violence than zero tolerance policies and it is more likely to lead to solutions that can help students who are struggling with difficult situations before they blow up go postal.