When Rachel Davis was grabbed by another girl at her Tennessee high school, she walked away. The other girl confronted her again, and again Davis walked away. It’s all on Fairview High’s surveillance tape. Outside camera range, the attacker hit Davis in the face with her purse, she admits. David tried to defend herself and ended up wrestling on the ground with the other girl. Both were suspended for five days for fighting.
Davis, who required stitches for facial cuts, was the victim, concludes the sheriff’s report. It didn’t matter to school officials.
According to the Williamson County School System, self defense is no defense when it comes to getting suspended for fighting.
Darren’s school has the same policy: Self-defense is grounds for suspension.
The principal at my own son’s school expects — and I kid you not — that students will curl up on the ground into a fetal position and hope that someone else goes running for help. No way will I support that. Stupidity of the highest form.
Read the comments on Darren’s site and the feedback at Instapundit.
I suspect that the whole point of the policy, like many such seemingly ridiculous policies, is to avoid having to make any judgment call. As soon as you have to judge anything, no matter how clear, you are exposing the school to multi-million dollar lawsuits by the “wronged” party. That’s why so many policies are arranged to avoid allowing those in charge to have any discretion.
Even in cases like this, simple obvious common-sense is no guarantee of avoiding a devastating judgment against the school by a suitable jury enraged by an eloquent lawyer.
Tom, don’t you think that the school is now open to a lawsuit by the girl who was attacked? You can’t have a policy that prevents someone from defending themselves unless you can guarantee that you can protect the individual. Too bad she wasn’t wearing tigger socks. Then the ACLU would sue on her behalf.
Unfortunately this sort of nonsense isn’t confined to public schools. At my son’s former (private) school, the Lady High Executioner was a feminista of the stupidest and purest (blue-white) kind.
When I protested the identical punishments meted out to my son and his attacker, Senora Feminista recounted a heart-wrenching story about how her rather plump younger son had been bullied at school. Her husband suggested that she let the kid deck his attacker, but she – filled with the righteous fervour of Steinem & Abzug – overrode him.
One can only imagine what followed.
My older sister was hounded by another girl in Jr. High. The other girl was bigger, tougher, had more friends, and took exception to my sister’s hair, clothing, manner, pretty much everything. In the locker room after P.E., she’d walk past my (very girly) sister and give her a shove into the locker, or pull her hair, or pinch her, or make snide remarks. This went on daily, and my sister didn’t complain to the teachers (this was the late 70’s — one didn’t go to teachers over such things). My mom’s advice: “Next time she pulls your hair or pinches you or anything, just turn around and hit her as hard as you can. Then this will stop.” My sister’s shocked reply: “But Mom, I’ll be suspended!” Mom: “That’s fine. Just do it.” Next day, girl walks past my sister, pulls her hair, makes some rude comment. Sis turns around and slaps the girl across the face, hard as she can. It’s immediately a fight, they both get dragged off by teachers, the counselor is shocked that my never-in-trouble was in a fight, and — “everyone gets suspended” rules being new in those days, was about to let her off. My sister insisted that she herself had hit first (technically true) and demanded her suspension. You’ve never seen a prouder suspended kid (or prouder mom). At least in those days, the mandatory suspension was juts one day. Oh, guess what? The other girl never touched her again. Amazing how that works! (Mind you, I wouldn’t recommend it if you thought the other kid was packing a knife or was hooked into a gang…)
As noted by a commenter at Instapundit, assault [simple assault, assault+battery, assault with intent to harm, etc.) is a felony. The first two incidents caught on tape rise to this (simple assault) level. The aggressive girl (and possibly her family, at least for civil suit) are open to charges, as is the school which is “enabling” (effectively, conspiring) such behavior. Especially since the principal “has no plan” to change a class the two share.
Don’t know if a suit would succeed, but the threat of one might at the least result in a review of policy.
Tom, don’t you think that the school is now open to a lawsuit by the girl who was attacked? You can’t have a policy that prevents someone from defending themselves unless you can guarantee that you can protect the individual.
I suspect the school is a lot safer with their current policy. They’re not saying you cannot defend yourself. They’re only saying that they will not judge who was “at fault” in the event of a fight. They cannot be seen to be executing any form of judgment.
As well, officials may feel that lawsuits seeking to extract as much cash as possible from the school board are much more likely the parents of aggressors, and bias their rules accordingly.
Tom West said:
“They’re not saying you cannot defend yourself.”
Tom, this is arrant nonsense. They punish you for defending yourself, don’t they? Surely I don’t need to point out how this argument can be extended to all kinds of crimes?
Look, I’m not defending the policy, I’m saying the policy is a *rational* (not *just*) reaction to a situation where a school board can be beggared any time an individual exercises discretion that might upset someone willing to sue.
The trend towards removal of discretion on the part of employees is found just about everywhere, although it is led by organizations that have deep pockets and thus the most to lose in the event of adverse judgments.
The Great American Jackpot – punitive damage awards disproportionate to the harm – needs to be slugged. Arnie suggested taxing punitive damages at 70%, but Maria cut him off until he recanted.
It’s the administrative personnel who are protected by the policy. By relieving them of the responsibility to make a judgment they’re shielded from litigation.
This is simply a thorny issue with no perfect answer. Kids are impulsive and emotional by nature. Some of them are downright mean and walk in to school each day thinking of ways to cause problems. Fighting, bullying, etc., appeals to them. The “whomever is fighting, “defending or not,” policy works well in my school most of the time. Face it – any policy, anywhere, created to deal with any problem – *at best* will work well most of the time. Joanne’s post is an awful situation and in this case, the administration would be wise to do what those in the business world do when a policy (which normally works pretty well) fails – make it go away quietly. In a specific-case scenario, is that ethical or the way we want anything we do with children to work? Of course not. Toward the overall goal of education, public or not, which is to proceed with learning, well, the ends do sometimes justify the means.
The way I see this policy work in my building (which has over 2,000 teenagers – so yes, we need to be aware of the potential for fighting) is that it’s an umbrella policy, a net if you will, designed to catch most of the fighting issues. It won’t catch them all, just like no teaching method in class will reach every child at exactly the same moment and speed. It catches most, then (just like tutoring of the students who didn’t get a lesson the first time) the administration deals, quietly and professionally and effectively, with the ones that don’t fall in the parameters it was designed for.
This post example clearly doesn’t fall within the parameters, but the administration (oh, my GOD, you mean they’re human, TOO?) has made some mistakes which will be really difficult to correct.
It’s called compromise, and this could have been worked out in the administration’s office with the kids and parents, some lessons learned by those willing to learn them, and school going on – sans negative media reports – the next day.
I don’t care for allen’s tone, but he has a point. Ironically, it looks like in this case there will still be litigation. However, it *is* part of the job of administration – in public education or anywhere else – to negotiate, to navigate through the problems so the ultimate goal of the organization can be reached.
My post has a tone? Feel free to rewrite to remove the offending tone. I’m curious how it would read.
I reached my conclusion by a process of elimination which is a metaphor that’s particularly apt given the value and quality of public education administration.
Who’s served by this policy? Not the kids certainly. A seven year-old isn’t confused about the difference between someone sitting there minding their own business and someone who comes along and punches the first person in the head. The criminal justice system is similarly unconfused. That’s why some people are perpetrators, other people are victims and it’s the former who are put on trial, and if convicted, incarcerated.
Certainly teachers don’t benefit if there’s any expectation that they teach.
The school board doesn’t benefit because they’re, ultimately, responsible for the school system and there’s no escaping the responsibility via such a policy.
Who’s that leave? The only group left are administrative personnel.
Justice, and the requirements of an orderly society, necessitate differentiating between the perpetrator and the victim. Since this policy explicitly prevents making that distinction it’s a policy that’s doesn’t promote an orderly educational society or justice.
yeah more lawyers running everbody life in the relentless cycle of stupidity.
allen – please tell me where this perfect justice system you describe exists. I’d like to move there. Emphasis on your own words – *if convicted*. There’s not a problem with fighting in schools (and more importantly figuring out who is to be held accountable) because schools are set up to make it difficult for the good to learn and easy for the bullies to thrive. There is a problem with fighting in schools (WHEN there is a problem. Again, the awful stories are awful, but they are still not the norm for the majority of students attending school, public or private) because human beings go to and run schools, and there is a problem with holding people who wish to do others harm accountable. Justice and the requirements of an orderly society necessitate TRYING to differentiate between the perpetrator and the victim. If there were a fail-proof way to do this, our justice system could be swift, (our legal system, more aptly put), and it would be WHEN convicted not IF.
Your tone implies that administration is in the “business” just to protect themselves, and that there is some satisfaction with the system as it is. If given the silver bullet to solve this problem, they’d choose this imperfect way of dealing with it over a real solution. That may be the case for a minority, but it is not the norm.
The kids, most of the time, which is the best we can hope for with any policy, are served by this. For example, I know you may find this difficult to believe, but some kids (and parents) would like to provoke someone else to hit them first, by a number of undetectable means. Word of mouth through friends. Glances not caught on camera. Words heard only by the provoked, also not caught on camera. Kids, more than most adults, due to the way their brains are wired, are by nature more emotional and impulsive. The provoked will often finally hit first. The hit can “defend” his or herself, and on camera, have proof that he or she should not be suspended. These types of situations are prevented by the policy. The few that don’t care about the policy are then dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
This policy explicitly prevents “making that distinction,” but effective administration uses negotiating, preventative, and navigational skills to use the policy so that kids can come to school and learn. It leaves many fewer cases that have to be dealt with at all, much less on a one-on-one, time consuming basis.
I am still chuckling at the idea that our criminal justice system is similarly unconfused. Surely, surely you jest. The tangled web of our criminal justice system underscores my point. In this instance, it’s not that schools are bad. Human nature spills over into the schools from the society in which they exist. Joanne’s example is an example of poor management on the part of administration. An instance where administration mishandled a situation (because it is the job of educators to handle seemingly impossible situations well so that kids can come to school and learn) and it’s more of a problem now. The policy when seen as a tool rather than some mythological paragon of perfection (like the justice system you describe … where does that exist, again?) can be very effective.
phooey. him or herself. objective. *sigh*
By the logic of this policy:
-If a student is copying off another student’s paper, both students should be punished equally, regardless of whether there was any complicity.
-If a student sexually harasses another student who tries to protect him or herself, both students get punished.
-If a student pulls a gun and the other student ducks and covers his head, both students get punished.
The problem with this policy is that it is stupid.
It demeans the children we are supposed to be educating.
It undermines the purpose of a school.
Where I teach few students believe in our system of justice. Handle your business is the philosophy they’ve been taught. In their neighborhoods, Crips and Bloods enforce their rules.
So we try to get these children to buy into an external system of justice — the police, the courts, the constitution. We cannot succeed if our policies are not defensible.
Larry, by the logic of your slippery slope, we shouldn’t make any rules or laws, ever, because when extrapolated to the extreme, they don’t make sense.
The problem with this policy is that we have an imperfect world and we do the best we can with what we’ve got. Sometimes that isn’t good enough, and when it’s not, it needs to be addressed.
If we wait until we have the perfect policies which can be extrapolated to any extreme and still make sense, well, we’ll be waiting a long time. In the meantime, I think I’ll avoid throwing out bathwater AND babies and get down to the business of teaching. Crips and Bloods enforce the rules in the neighborhoods of your students? Isn’t that because the laws are impossible to enforce 100% of the time, so there is a new system, born of greed and violence, taking over? Laws and rules are always impossible to enforce 100% of the time, but at school, laws of greed and violence don’t have to prevail. Compromise, professionalism, and preventative measures can prevail sometimes. If we spend all our time complaining about the 3% of the time it doesn’t work, though, we’ll lose even that.
At this exact moment, I have a student I know (not even one of mine/on my roster, just one I’ve developed rapport with) who is in the hospital with bleeding on the brain because he started a fight which didn’t end well. I have three others, however, who are NOT fighting or getting in trouble because THOSE I was able to reach (and I’m sure, a myriad of other factors, but I know I’m one of those factors). For today. For now. With gangs in their neighborhoods and imperfect policies and yes, administration which isn’t perfect all the time, either. And for those three, school goes on, and learning continues, and we work toward the ticket out of the neighborhood with its acutely imperfect system to another neighborhood, with its own imperfections, but a little more civilization and a little less violence.
Try to stay off the slippery slope. It’s great for a philosophy class in an ivory tower, but we have the luxury of neither in our schools.
Z,
You’re wrong about this.
Larry Strauss hasn’t asked for a perfect system; he’s asking for common sense. This rule fails that test.
BTW, I was amused by your claim that “…the administration deals, quietly and professionally and effectively, with the ones that don’t fall in the parameters it was designed for.”
Quietly? Professionally? Effectively? Perhaps on Mongo, but not on Earth.
R,
Proof in pudding. We have this rule. We have school everyday. And you don’t have to capitalize earth. Funny how when there’s something people DON’T like in education, they’re all over running it like a business (fire everyone! you’re fired!). But when we do something the way the business world does (heLLO, does your company not have some ridiculous-on-paper-but-works-with-compromise policies? oh, wait, no, you work in MONGOland) – all of the sudden, everyone’s aghast, real world ethics and compromise and imperfection, oh, our poor children.
Gimme a break. OH, wait, I am on one. Hence all the time to post, and postulate. But you – quit wasting your employer’s dollars and get back to work.
Z, a couple of points.
One, most kids have no choice but to attend a public school – that is, it’s a state monopoly. Private companies often have asinine policies, but they either get fixed or they go out of business. You cannot compare the two.
Two, the rule is stupid, no ifs, ands or buts.
Lastly, I’m not particularly impressed by the business world, but even less am I impressed by the public sector. At least in the business there’s (sometimes) a rough justice; not so in the public sector.
So the people employed by a private company have choices? Why so many stuck in jobs they hate, because of need for insurance, etc., then? When they do go out of business (worldcom, enron) they often ruin many more lives than one banged up girl in the process. that’s also not rough justice.
back to real world. away from mongo. i’m not saying there are no problems, or not to fix them. i’m saying let’s approach it with reason.
the rule works, like most rules, when enforced (or not enforced and professionally “gotten around,”) by reasonable people. making rules, schools, and businesses based on only the most UNREASONABLE people is silly.
“As noted by a commenter at Instapundit, assault [simple assault, assault+battery, assault with intent to harm, etc.) is a felony.”
Simple assault is not a felony in a jurisdiction I’m aware of. It’s not in Florida where I practice, and the quickest glance at Tennessee’s assault statutes shows it’s not there either:
–Tenn. Code § 39-13-101
“The aggressive girl (and possibly her family, at least for civil suit) are open to charges…”
She’s clearly open to criminal charges: it’s a hell of lot of a better case than many I’ve prosecuted. And her family would presumably be stuck satisfying any judgment if there were a civil suit, though I don’t see that they’d actually be civilly liable themselves (or if you’re actually arguing that).
“as is the school which is “enabling†(effectively, conspiring) such behavior.”
Uh, no. There might be credible legal theories as to why to hold the school liable here, but conspiracy is not one of them. A conspiracy, whether criminal or civil, requires an actual agreement and at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One cannot be a passive conspirator, i.e., conspire without knowing it.
“They’re not saying you cannot defend yourself. They’re only saying that they will not judge who was “at fault†in the event of a fight.”
How exactly is that not a distinction without a difference?
Zuzupetals–
I wasn’t arguing that this policy would lead to punishing the victims of sex harassment — only that it would be inconsistent not to.
If I were making a slippery slope argument, I would have said that the problem with the policy was that it would lead to such even more extreme abuses of power….
So why is the sex harassment case any different from these policies on fighting?
In a civil society isn’t self-defense a fundamental right? Shouldn’t it be?
I’ve broken up dozens of fights over the years. In most of these, the challenge is not determining who started it but how to keep it from escalating to gun violence involving outsiders.
In cases of bullying, we try to figure out what happened and who is responsible. When that can’t be determined, sometimes we punish innocent people. But to have a blanket policy that innocent people will always be punished seems barbaric.
Years ago, there was a policy in construction to stick disclaimers all over, from the original design contract to the shop drawing approval stamp to the final inspection punch list. My shop drawing stamp carried so much verbiage it took all my weight to make an impression. I then learned that a disclaimer was not much more than an expression of a desire not to get sued. I now save my energy [and insurance] for defending my judgement. There can be no authority without responsibility. Except in congress.
Why wouldn’t you capitalize Earth? Do you not capitalize Mars or Jupiter?
From http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/sciterminology.html:
“Do not capitalize the word earth unless it is used without the definite article in connection with the names of other planets.
The earth rotates on its axis.
Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, followed by Venus and Earth.”
So Ragnarok is correct when he writes “Perhaps on Mongo, but not on Earth.”
If you Google “capitalize earth” this is clearly the consensus.
Sister Howitzer. Maybe you should google “sense of humor.”
Why would I think it’s funny that a teacher is incorrectly correcting someone’s grammar?
Repeating my suggestion.
Allen, with all due respect – you could type unintelligible, swahilian, ancient dialect using cuneiform, and I think it would have a tone.
Z,
You’ve been massacred. Go now to the Great Father in the Sky.
Happy Christmas.
“Allen, with all due respect – you could type unintelligible, swahilian, ancient dialect using cuneiform, and I think it would have a tone.”
Yes, quite true, but it’s the tone of logical discourse.
R,
Your assumption that it’s a great FATHER has an arrogant tone, among other things. Arrogant tone forgiven because of effective native american motif, consistent in your response, as well as the capitalization allusion. I know your KIDS go to private school, but your own schooling? Your bit about Allen has a tone that implies that you’ve discerned I didn’t mean logical discourse. Very discerning of you.
It is, indeed, a very happy Christmas. At least for some of us. The ones who don’t need to google certain things to find them. I’ll go google kindness and humility, formulate a cutting and arrogant response, and post it.
WAITING FOR SANTA. Just me and Beckett. In the meantime, thoroughly enjoying the break.
Feminists are cute when they are mad.
Zuz said:
“Your assumption that it’s a great FATHER has an arrogant tone, among other things. “
Alas, Zuz. I abase myself, Zuz. In my defense I would remind you that I’m only taking my cue from one of the greatest Greek classics, the Oresteia, in which Apollo defends Orestes against the Furies in front of Athena. Surely you aren’t going to find fault with that?
Not sure what you mean by “…[my] own schooling?” I went to what you’d call private schools, though we called them “public” schools. I don’t see how that’s relevant, though.
Walter,
You knocked that one out of the park.
WW and R,
You two may not have high heels or short skirts, but you’re mean girls if ever I saw ‘em. Points to Walter for acutely clever remark. Layers. I’m impressed. R, points for consistency (I don’t see how that’s relevant = R sees doesn’t want to acknowledge or plain doesn’t understand). Did you use that on essays in your public private schools? Minus points for statement of obvious in your next post, however. It would have been acceptable if you could have weaved that idea into another native american-motifed post.
As for the whole idea of me being massacred. We’ve been down this road before. I work with teenagers. This is recess for me. Walter’s comment, though, is the best I’ve seen in a long time. I’ll definitely use it, just trying to decide how unethical it would be to withhold credit when I do.
P.S. surely Socrates would have recognized the difference between questioning and finding fault with. Not sure why the holy Greeks mean that questioning is off-limits, but it has an irony I like.
> This policy explicitly prevents “making that distinction,†but effective administration uses negotiating, preventative, and navigational skills to use the policy so that kids can come to school and learn. It leaves many fewer cases that have to be dealt with at all, much less on a one-on-one, time consuming basis.
Navigational skills?
This must be like one of those moments captured by a wildlife photographer that’s never been photographed before: behold! the birth of an edu-cliche.
These navigational skills, are they supported by navigational strategies? Or are navigational skills all that’s currently necessary to, uh, navigate?
Probably these are evolving navigational skills that are accreting multiple facets in cross-disciplinary, child-centered action teams which pro-actively assess situational interconnections in an on-going effort to maximize opportunities for positive, community-affirming outcomes. But that’s just a guess.
You know zuzu, you might really be onto something here. “Educational navigation” has the feel of progress, of moving toward a goal with a grasp of the dangers and opportunities yet there’s also the suggestion of an arcane skill somewhat, but not quite, akin to magic.
Whole movements in the education field have been built on less.
I’ve even thought of a title to go with the mastery of educational navigation. A trifle obvious I admit but a business card imprinted with “Educational Navigator” has just got to fade the rubes. Who’s going to admit they’re so ignorant, so unsophisticated that they haven’t heard of an educational navigator?
The possibilities really are quite exciting.
Just imagine, someone innocently asks you whether you teach navigation and you can raise an eyebrow in ill-concealed contempt, tempered with just the right amount of pity, and explain with a show of great patience as if you’ve been asked that same, dog-gone question a million times, that that’s a navigator educator.
That should be good for getting tenure at an ed school and a couple of years of avoiding an answer but sooner or later some dull clod, too stupid to realize that the world is now uncomfortably party to their ignorance, will press the issue. Well, we all have our nightmares, don’t we?
Hi Allen,
I think my nightmare is that my wording regarding something incredibly important (why some schools actually work well) will get in the way of clarity and unnecessarily put someone off. I have obviously done that here. Bottom line, we need to go to school and have school. I can only speak from my experience (at least with authority). We have 2200 students in my building. About 3-5% of those students come to school with the objective of keeping school from happening. In spite of this, we have school every day. Our kids are learning, they are performing on standardized tests, they are meeting nearly every objective nearly all the time (as a student body) set to measure if we’re “having school.” We have this policy and in capable hands I see it work, for the reasons I described above.
As for the navigational skills. It’s not educational navigation, nor did I use that exact phrase. Any middle manager needs to navigate. Navigate between what those “above” them expect and what those “below” them require. Navigate between the rules and laws on the paper and the real people those rules and laws come into contact with. In a school, this is done so we can have school – so the kids can learn. In a business, it’s done so that money can be made. In a country, so that people can go about doing both of those things and more. If just rules or laws, good or not, were enough, we wouldn’t need judges, juries, or supreme courts at any level. We could just have a computer which spit out penalties and reprieves. Obviously, we don’t. I think it’s because people must always navigate between what is on paper, the spirit of the “law,” and what happens in the real world – so that what happens is as close to what the objective of the rule(s) as possible.
I apologize if the use of the word “navigational” threw you off. I think I sense frustration with education-ese, and it may also exist for the business gurus, the political gurus, and the like, with fancy language which accomplishes little. My error of wording is an egregious one. What I’m describing – someone doing their job, dealing effectively with problems which arrive so that the “business” of a school may continue – is not fodder for a master’s thesis or god forbid, some new educational theory. It’s just a middle manager, but in an assistant principal’s role, doing his or her job. When this job is done well, as I see on a daily basis in my school with this policy, it means that at least 96% of the students come to school and have school (learn) every day.
P.S. I can assure you, 100%, that I have absolutely no desire to gain tenure at an ed school or spend any time avoiding answers. Solely interested in being the teacher part of “having school” every day.
I think your biases are showing, Zuzu, when you say that Walter Wallis and I are “mean girls”. Why not “mean guys”? Does everything have to be racked to fit the ideals of feminism?
Apparently the answer is “Yes”.
For the record, I think that the majority of US public schools do an abysmal job. This is corroborated by worldwide tests (PISA, TIMSS etc). It’s one thing to be optimistic, and quite another to be in denial – as you seem to be.
As for your response to Allen’s last post, you’ve missed the tone by quite a margin.
I’m late to the party, but I have a few observations:
1) As others have said, rules that punish the innocent are ridiculous and should be changed immediately. Likewise, anything that serves only to “cover” the adminstrators from lawsuits–and has the potential to leave students unprotected in the process–has no place in an educational system. The students must be served first.
2) Those who are in charge of implementing the rules should have absolute legal authority to enforce those rules. It’s insane that some commenters feel that discretion should be taken away from the administrators (as in who’s guilty or not in a fight). Why do we even have the administrators, if that’s the case? If they don’t get to make the decisions they were hired to make, we could just have everything spouted out by a giant computer, like Zuzu suggested.
3) I hope I never read again of school administrators being referred to as “middle management.” As educators, we shouldn’t be looking to the business world as role models, and most middle management is useless to boot.
4) The 3-5% of kids who aren’t in school to learn should be removed from the schools–again, without fear of lawsuits or charges of racism. Let’s put some of the responsibility back on the parents, where it belongs; the school is not here to raise your kids for you.
5) The best way to solve problems like this–besides giving administrators the legal backup to make and enforce the tough decisions that they were hired to make–is to keep administrators from ever leaving the teaching field. Give them extra responsibilities, but require them to have at least one foot in a classroom, so that they won’t lose touch with what’s going on in education now (instead of 30 years ago) and never develop that bureaucratic, ivory-tower mentality. That’s right–administrators must teach. It’s an idea whose time has come.
R,
Undoubtedly my biases are showing, as all of ours do, to anyone with half a brain and a discerning eye. Mean girls is just a metaphor, and mean guys clothed as I described would be … creepy. PLUS I don’t think you’re “mean guys,” anyways. Just a little snarky at times. Aren’t we all. But hey, snarky or not, at least you think about education enough to read this blog and post here.
I know your opinion on the majority of US public schools. This post is about this rule and if it works, however. In my school, it does, for the reasons I listed. Even your “sister superior” would have done well to manage the situation better for you and your son. I have not seen this rule as a reason, specifically or in the sense of an “underlying cause,” for schools doing abysmally on worldwide tests. And, in fact, your comment that the same rule is used in private schools, at least some of them, whose test scores are acceptable, seems to support my impression.
I do think what happened in the Tennessee school could have been avoided, not by doing away with the rule, but by better handling of the entire situation by administration from the beginning.
Since the rigors of age and spinal deformation have reduced my previous 6 foot height to 5′7″, perhaps I should try 5 inch heels to compensate, but the Kilts of my clan must wait for warmer weather.
“I have not seen this rule as a reason, specifically or in the sense of an “underlying cause,†for schools doing abysmally on worldwide tests.”
Nor do I claim it.
I think the reasons are laziness, stupidity, incompetence, political correctness, greed, and the ever-present desire to find that one quick fix that’ll solve every problem.
Such fixes rarely exist. The real solution is often hard work and continuous improvement (think kaizen).
No, your nightmare scenario is being unable to escape responsibility for the authority you wield. That’s why a policy as idiotic as punishing perpetrator and victim alike makes sense to you. Better to embitter a succession of children with the knowledge that the public education system, along with being indifferent to education, is indifferent to justice, then to require an administrator to exercise judgement.
> Your tone implies that administration is in the “business†just to protect themselves, and that there is some satisfaction with the system as it is.
Still obsessing over my tone? Let me make it bit more explicit then: administration in public education is largely superfluous and the structure of public education selects for people who are averse to accepting responsibility for the authority they wield. The ability to generate circuitous rationalizations for ineffective, counter-productive or just, plain stupid policies is then a desirable trait and maintaining and orderly and safe school environment conducive to learning is secondary.
ALLEN. Try writing more like Hemingway and less like Faulkner. I got lost in the black hole which is the syntax of your sentence.
Obsessing – I am not obsessive. Have you not seen Broadcast News? Gimme a break.
A few points:
No, your nightmare scenario is being unable to escape responsibility for the authority you wield. That’s why a policy as idiotic as punishing perpetrator and victim alike makes sense to you.
Such policies are enacted not to protect the administrators, but to protect the school board, and ultimately the municipality or state that funds them. It’s not the administrator who will be on the hook for a multi-million dollar judgment.
To be honest, in a private company, administrators that *fail* to protect their company from the possibility of adverse judgments to the maximum extent possible are likely to get themselves fired. Your attitude could easily be perceived as arrogance. Think about all the law cases you’ve read about. Do you *really* think your decisions could not possibly be judged adversely by a jury given the right lawyer arguing against your decision. Enough to endanger the entire school board?
administration in public education is largely superfluous and the structure of public education selects for people who are averse to accepting responsibility for the authority they wield.
While we’d all like education to live in an alternate reality where we could ignore the injustices of the outside world and concentrate only on education, it’s not. It lives in a world where it *must* be cognoscent of realities around it or be removed and replaced by something that is. (One could make a plausible case that this is, in fact, what has happened.)
It’s all too enticing to develop a fictional narrative with bad guys and good guys that explains the ills of our current educational system. The reality is far more complex and a lot more boring. We have the educational system we have because that is how our society has developed. Our current system is a natural outgrowth of the different interests and their relative importance in contemporary society.
Moan about society if you like, but you blaming administrators for protecting the education system is like left-wingers blaming company presidents for not placing social welfare above company profits. It won’t often happen in our society and those administrators/presidents who do are usually quickly replaced.
Everyone needs to go West toute de suite. Well put. I hate admitting when someone makes my point more effectively than I do, but … well put.
While Kev’s observations might make a improve educational outcomes, they violate dozens of policies that we as a society have placed a much higher priority upon.
Again, educational outcomes are only one priority among many in our society and definitely not the highest one (or even really among the highest ones).
The students must be served first.
Kev, I think you’re under the impression that schools exist to serve students. Fortunately or unfortunately, you’re wrong. They exist to serve the people who are paying for them – ultimately the voters. As voters, we have dozens of different higher priority items than simply serving the educational needs of the students, such as, as per this discussion, preserving the tax-payer from multi-million dollar judgments.
If other school priorities include “raising the kids”, insulating children from the permanent consequences of bad behavior, answering to the courts (including lawsuits), and removal of parental responsibility for educational outcomes, then that’s because that’s what we as a society have chosen. Those who have chosen not to conform to our priorities, have been, for the most part, replaced by those who will. In general, democracy works.
I think your biases are showing, Zuzu, when you say that Walter Wallis and I are “mean girlsâ€. Why not “mean guysâ€?
Because “mean girls” is an idiom with very specific meaning. Since I doubt that you are unaware of this contemporary idiom, then indeed, your
reply is in fact proof of the appellation. Specifically, the use of verbal cleverness to attempt to bully an opponent.
I’ll admit I’m somewhat saddened at finding adults that feel that bullying is a better way to make a point than reasoned discourse. Can’t we leave the school-ground games behind us?
(And I’m sorry, but I’ve been encountering the “it was just a joke” defense of all sorts of bullying since grade 1. Isn’t it time to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions?)
“West” defense, is however, apparently defense enough. Enjoying a good chuckle as I work on lesson plans this winter break.
Tom West:
That is an interesting point — that schools are meant to serve tax payers and not children.
Do you mean this as a legal distinction?
Or an economic one?
Political reality?
Moral imperative?
Or some combination?
Or all of the above?
There certainly is confusion about the intended purpose of school.
They write mission statements that, aside from being disconnected from the day to day reality, seem to suggest that nothing comes before the needs and interests of their students.
These mission statements are often encouraged — if not required — by school districts and state departments of education.
Well, Tom, you’ve been writing up a storm. Perhaps I could take a shot at responding to a few of your points?
“Such policies are enacted not to protect the administrators, but to protect the school board, and ultimately the municipality or state that funds them. It’s not the administrator who will be on the hook for a multi-million dollar judgment.”
Says who? When was the last time you saw a school board that was focused on taking less rather than more money from the taxpayers? Cite, please.
“Your attitude could easily be perceived as arrogance. “
This is very tempting, but it wouldn’t be fair to Allen to respond.
“[Allen]: …administration in public education is largely superfluous and the structure of public education selects for people who are averse to accepting responsibility for the authority they wield.
[Tom West]: While we’d all like education to live in an alternate reality where we could ignore the injustices of the outside world and concentrate only on education, it’s not.”
Are you seriously denying Allen’s thesis? How then do KIPP and their ilk, not to mention private schools, manage so well with such a think layer of administration? Please cite your sources for claiming that administrative blubber is required.
Or – wait – maybe you’re saying, that’s the way it is (not even the way it was), and that’s good enough for us? ‘Fraid not.
“We have the educational system we have because that is how our society has developed.”
Ah, a truism! Almost impossible to demolish, and equally content-free.
“but you blaming administrators for protecting the education system is like left-wingers blaming company presidents for not placing social welfare above company profits.”
No, Tom, the stated goal of the school is the betterment of the students.
Here’s a Mission Statement from one of the worst school districts in this here area:
“The stakeholders of the Ravenswood City School District will work collaboratively to create a quality instructional program that empowers students to make choices, achieve their personal best and be productive and responsible members of our society. All students will have access to an enriched academic curriculum in which high standards are set for all. Ravenswood students will also experience an educational environment rich in a set of universal values or life skills, which recognize and celebrate our cultural diversity. The stakeholders will take responsibility to ensure that the goals of the mission statement are realized.
“
Perhaps you could tell them that they’re wrong? Go for it!
As for your response to Kev, the mind boggles.
Similarly for your response to me.
My dear fellow, I’m devastated that you’re saddened by the state of our discourse, but perhaps I could ask you to be a more considerate of the English language? A riposte doesn’t have quite the same zing when you butcher the delivery by misspelling “cognizant”.
Cheers!
Zuzu said:
“ALLEN. Try writing more like Hemingway and less like Faulkner. I got lost in the black hole which is the syntax of your sentence.”
Hmm, which sentence? I’ve had no trouble reading and grokking Allen’s prose for lo! these many years.
Both of these:
[i]Let me make it bit more explicit then: administration in public education is largely superfluous and the structure of public education selects for people who are averse to accepting responsibility for the authority they wield. The ability to generate circuitous rationalizations for ineffective, counter-productive or just, plain stupid policies is then a desirable trait and maintaining and orderly and safe school environment conducive to learning is secondary.[/i]
The first sentence has an independent clause with direct object followed by another independent clause which becomes a run-on (no comma before the conjunction) and concludes with two dependent clauses.
The second one has the same run-on structure (no comma before the conjunction), and there are 12 words between the subject and verb. These twelve words comprise one infinitive phrase and one prepositional phrase complete with six words modifying the object. This first half is followed by another independent clause which has nine words between the subject and the verb, also forming a string of phrases.
If you got through THOSE sentences, I feel like revenge has been exacted. Now I can explain it in plain, simple English.
Both sentences are run-ons (grammatically incorrect) because they don’t have a comma before the conjunction in each used to join two independent clauses. I am a little surprised that you’re defending a sentence (not Allen, I’m not attacking him, either – just the syntax) which has basic grammatical errors in light of your statements here about basic skills, lo, these many years.
In addition to being run-ons, there is a stylistic element which adds to the difficulty of following the ideas in them. They have strings of words which are phrases, not clauses, between the subject and the verb. Generally a clause is easier to follow than a list of phrases made up of the same number of words.
Hemingway used shorter sentences. Faulkner, while he wrote grammatically correct and stylistically sound sentences, did not. If you’re NOT Faulkner, long sentences are likely to have both grammatical and stylistic issues which make the ideas in them difficult to decipher.
Many times, if you think the same way a writer does (is that grokking?), you see past this without realizing it. This same phenomenon is why even the very best writers have editors; we do it when we proofread our own writing, as well. Just a theory as to why you may have grokked so well, high and low, these many years.
Zuzu,
I said had had no trouble understanding Allen’s prose, and I say it still. His arguments are clear and easy to follow.
Note too that English is an extraordinarily flexible language, capable of singing in the hands of Shaw as well as Hemingway, Marlowe as well as T. E. Lawrence. All of them had very different styles – remember Lawrence’s spelling? – but I doubt you’d argue that any of them was a poor writer.
I learnt grammar (supposedly) from a book we called Wren & Martin, but actually from reading. The rules of grammar are merely guidelines, and with sufficient skill you can bend them to your purpose. Don’t believe me? Great literature is full of examples.
On the other hand, I’ve had some trouble following your sentences. I haven’t made an issue of them, but it’s surprising, since you’re a teacher (probably English). It would be easy to find a handful of dubious constructions, but I prefer not to.
As for editors, I have some doubts about them. Like spell-checkers, which I think are a coward’s resource, I’m inclined to think that you should stand or fall by what you write, not some ‘droid of an editor.
“The first sentence has an independent clause with direct object”
Wouldn’t that be an independent clause with a predicate adjective?
Zuzu has trouble finding fault with the argument (while apparently having no real difficulty understanding it, given the detailed parsing above), so the response is to critique the form? While going on for 1.5 screens?!
This isn’t 9th grade English class, or even freshman comp. If you don’t have a counter-argument, logorrhea won’t create one.
“it’s not the administrator who will be on the hook for a multi-million dollar judgment.â€
“Says who?”
Says the principle of qualified immunity. Liability on the part of a school board is not going to result in an administrator being personally liable to satisfy a judgment except under the rarest of extreme circumstances. If that wasn’t so, when was the last time you heard of an administrator or a teacher having to buy what amounts to malpractice insurance?
Pigs, wrestling, lesson learned a few months back forgotten, now remembered.
> Pigs, wrestling, lesson learned a few months back forgotten, now remembered.
Proving that Godwin’s Law needs a couple of corollaries.
> Liability on the part of a school board is not going to result in an administrator being personally liable to satisfy a judgment except under the rarest of extreme circumstances.
There are more kinds of liability then the legal variety. For instance, if you, as an administrator, draw the wrong sort of attention or embarrass the school board, you’re liable to find yourself unemployed. That’s why it’s all too common for administrators to try to cover up crimes that occur in a school; better a nobody like a student suffer then important people be made uncomfortable.
no need to insult pigs, allen. they’re very intelligent, even though they don’t have discriminating palates and seem to enjoy mud wrestling.
Just so we don’t drift too far from the post that kicked off the thread, the policy of even-handedly punishing perpetrator and victim serves only the interests of those who have the responsibility of dealing with a situation in which there is a perpetrator and a victim.
Dismissing such policy as stupid avoids the reality that no policy is ever enacted without someone’s interests in mind.
But examining the don’t-ask-don’t-judge policy from the perspective of self-interest brings us face to face with the discomforing realization that the only group that directly benefits from this policy are administrators. Respoonsible for the day-to-day operation of schools and thus, dealing with these situations, they are now absolved of that resposibility. The situations, violence between kids, will go on as before but now the victim suffers twice, the perpetrator once and the administrator isn’t required to make any decision.
And notice the corrosive effect that this policy has on the operation of a school.
The personnel who are willing to accept their responsibility to maintain an environment conducive to learning are now at risk whether they’re right or wrong. Their only safe course, their only safe course as dictated by school policy, is to abdicate their responsibility as adults. Over time those employees who can’t comfortably abdicate their resposibilities as adults are driven out of the system leaving those who either explicitly don’t care, rationalize their lack of a sense of responsibility or have the fortitude to hold out against the tide.
A teenager friend of mine went through this exact same situation. A girl she didn’t even know started hitting her at lunch and she walked away. But 30 minutes later the girl attacked her again. The girl was later charged and plead guilty to assault. However, the DA also tried to go to trial and charge her with fighting on campus. The parents hired a lawyer and the DA decided his case wasn’t as strong as he thought. After all, the students who were going to testify against her were the other girl’s good friends.
when was the last time you heard of an administrator or a teacher having to buy what amounts to malpractice insurance?
Well…I purchase professional liability insurance every year through my state music educators’ association. It’s pretty common in my neck of the woods.
As for your response to Kev, the mind boggles.
My mind was boggled as well. It’s too bad that nobody’s come up with a “sarcasm” tag in HMTL yet; I’ve been trying to decide if Tom is serious when he says that the schools are meant to serve taxpayers and not students. I’d like to think he’s kidding, but I fear he’s not.
the only group that directly benefits from this policy are administrators.
I disagree. The administrators aren’t going to lose their house or get fired. The school board (meaning in the end the students or the taxpayers) are the ones on the hook for any adverse judgments. Administrator are managers and their first responsibility is to protect their employers – us. Legally, only the taxpayer/school board can be held financially responsible for their decisions.
Again, it is useful to remember that administrator’s responsibility is to their employer (us), not to their customers (the children). We are the beneficiaries of these policies, odious as they might be.
Didn’t Al Shanker say something about the function of schools?
I’d like to think he’s kidding, but I fear he’s not.
No, I’m not, but it’s the nature of the beast. We’re paying for it, we (through elections), can alter its policies arbitrarily, therefor it serves us. Schools serve students the same way a company serves its customers. Student/customer interests are important, but they are not necessarily the highest priority unless the owners choose to make it so.
This isn’t evil – this is accountability. But accountability means being held to *our* standards. Hopefully our standards rate educational outcomes fairly highly, but that’s our choice, not the administrators.
(Although it is quite evident that, as I outlined above, there are obviously a lot of priorities that we rate more highly than educational outcomes.)
> The administrators aren’t going to lose their house or get fired.
On the contrary, the failure to protect their more proximate employer, the school board rather then their ultimate employer, the taxpayer, will sure as heck get them fired.
School board members work pretty hard to get elected and they’re public figures. They’re unlikely to view kindly an employee who causes them embarressment by a failure to deal quietly and efficiently with some evidence that not all is well in the schools under the board’s watch. Administrators who make unpleasentnesses go away are liable to be warmly recalled when the time rolls around to pick the new superintendant.
I purchase liability insurance, FYI, because in our state, probably for about 6 maybe 8 years now, attorneys have encouraged families who want to sue a district to skip the district and go after a teacher because teachers are likely to have less resources to defend, will settle more easily, etc. For the record, I’ve never been sued, and in nine years of teaching with at least 1500 students, I have had exactly 8 concerns from parents which ended with them contacting someone “over my head.” These have all been resolved. I do simply consider negotiating and compromise, with the learning of the student as the primary objective, part of my job.
NOW, (very personal here). In some South American countries, salespeople cannot keep their jobs. The law enforcement system has broken down to the point that they are completely vulnerable to thieves/muggers when they leave work each day. Their companies often have insurance to cover some of their loss, but that usually runs out on the third or fourth mugging of a month. Why do I bring this up? Because I love my job, and more importantly, I’m good at it – serving the students, regardless of whomever is or is not held accountable for who fights in their school. Perspective makes it very easy to stay, doing what I am doing.
Also, there is good research out there that even in fending off adversarial lawsuits, there are proactive things I can do. Malcolm Gladwell has interesting information about statistics regarding doctors who do and do not suffer malpractice lawsuits. It’s information I found apropos to my situation and also information which helps me live in the probable and not the possible.
WHICH BRINGS ME BACK to the ORIGINAL TOPIC of this post. The punish victim/perpetrator equally, given the resources of today’s schools (public and private), looks bad on paper, but in capable hands works well in practice. At least, it works as well as just about any other rule or law designed to keep bad people (or good kids making bad decisions) from doing bad things. And speaking of possible vs probable – sometimes the stories posted here are the former. It is always important to examine the possible, because while the law has many flaws, the spirit of No Child Left Behind is a good one – and we don’t want it to be possible to leave any child behind. However, enacting sweeping changes or doing away with major policy based on the possible, rather than the probable, doesn’t always make a lot of sense.