Worth noting in light of ACLU lawsuit on discipline.
Nov 20, 2014 at 4:48am Edited
Serious evaluation and all kinds of data are needed before judgments can be formed about that number.
The article gives the distinct impression that the teacher has already formed her judgment, less than three months into the policy change.
The article gives the distinct impression that the teacher has already formed her judgment, less than three months into the policy change.
Nov 20, 2014 at 5:21am Edited
It sounds like Robbinsdale SD took away the option to suspend for infractions like defiance, disrespect, insubordination, gang affiliation, harassment, bullying, physical contact, property damage, and use and/or possession of alcohol and drugs.
However, it seems like the teacher is not aware of any new discipline policies for these infractions. From the article, it appears there are no disciplinary measures or supports at all for these students-but that impression may or may not be correct. When the most extreme option is removed, I would assume something else would be put in its place.
It will be interesting to see what our own district does to address this.
However, it seems like the teacher is not aware of any new discipline policies for these infractions. From the article, it appears there are no disciplinary measures or supports at all for these students-but that impression may or may not be correct. When the most extreme option is removed, I would assume something else would be put in its place.
It will be interesting to see what our own district does to address this.
Nov 20, 2014 at 5:29am Edited
It would appear that the districts that already have the most discipline issues will suffer disproportionately under these rules.
@sprout, this is from the Robbinsdale superintendent's post. I'm not familiar with these strategies, but perhaps you are:
All schools in the district utilize Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) strategies. Simply defined, PBIS strategies help teachers tell students what behaviors they want to see, instead of behaviors they do not want to see. The district’s teachers are also trained in Response to Intervention (RtI), which involves teachers focusing on student data, scrutinizing it at a higher level, and providing students with the supports they need to succeed.
http://www.rdale.org/pages/rdale/Departments/Marketing_Communications/News_and_Publications/News/Suspension_rates_down
All schools in the district utilize Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) strategies. Simply defined, PBIS strategies help teachers tell students what behaviors they want to see, instead of behaviors they do not want to see. The district’s teachers are also trained in Response to Intervention (RtI), which involves teachers focusing on student data, scrutinizing it at a higher level, and providing students with the supports they need to succeed.
http://www.rdale.org/pages/rdale/Departments/Marketing_Communications/News_and_Publications/News/Suspension_rates_down
This is not my area of expertise, but from my understanding:
I believe the first is a classroom management strategy that focuses on positive reinforcement.
The second is a method used to teach content. I believe it's more scripted and tends to be seen in more urban districts.
Neither of these is an appropriate substitute to defining a process for dealing with severe, but "non-dangerous' rule infractions. They should have alternate internal discipline measures, mandated inclusion of the school mental health professional (e.g., social worker), and other supports for the student and teacher as needed.
Basically, it sounds like the superintendent's post is putting the onus on teachers in the classroom to remediate these students. If that is actually the extent of what is occurring, then this is not a thoughtful or helpful approach for the student or the teacher. It is a cheap, and fast approach to reduce the suspension statistics -- without actually addressing the issues that the high suspension rate was a symptom of.
I believe the first is a classroom management strategy that focuses on positive reinforcement.
The second is a method used to teach content. I believe it's more scripted and tends to be seen in more urban districts.
Neither of these is an appropriate substitute to defining a process for dealing with severe, but "non-dangerous' rule infractions. They should have alternate internal discipline measures, mandated inclusion of the school mental health professional (e.g., social worker), and other supports for the student and teacher as needed.
Basically, it sounds like the superintendent's post is putting the onus on teachers in the classroom to remediate these students. If that is actually the extent of what is occurring, then this is not a thoughtful or helpful approach for the student or the teacher. It is a cheap, and fast approach to reduce the suspension statistics -- without actually addressing the issues that the high suspension rate was a symptom of.
sprout said:
This is not my area of expertise, but from my understanding:
I believe the first is a classroom management strategy that focuses on positive reinforcement.
The second is a method used to teach content. I believe it's more scripted and tends to be seen in more urban districts.
Neither of these is an appropriate substitute to defining a process for dealing with severe, but "non-dangerous' rule infractions. They should have alternate internal discipline measures, mandated inclusion of the school mental health professional (e.g., social worker), and other supports for the student and teacher as needed.
Basically, it sounds like the superintendent's post is putting the onus on teachers in the classroom to remediate these students. If that is actually the extent of what is occurring, then this is not a thoughtful or helpful approach for the student or the teacher. It is a cheap, and fast approach to reduce the suspension statistics -- without actually addressing the issues that the high suspension rate was a symptom of.
Agree
Those categories of behaviors listed as non-dangerous are also problematic and of course fly in the face of other mandates regarding bullying and harassment.
Nov 20, 2014 at 5:53am Edited
BTW: The Wikipedia entry for RTI can provide some insight into it's pro's/con's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_to_intervention
And PBIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_behavior_support
It seems both of these are targeted more to LD / SPED students, and less to general education. Which then speaks to the assumptions the Superintendent is making about the students who have these infractions.
If this is all the district prepared in terms of a 'new' way to manage students with fairly severe infractions, it makes sense that the teacher/writer of the article is reporting as she is.
ETA: I really hope SOMSD is more thoughtful than this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_to_intervention
And PBIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_behavior_support
It seems both of these are targeted more to LD / SPED students, and less to general education. Which then speaks to the assumptions the Superintendent is making about the students who have these infractions.
If this is all the district prepared in terms of a 'new' way to manage students with fairly severe infractions, it makes sense that the teacher/writer of the article is reporting as she is.
ETA: I really hope SOMSD is more thoughtful than this.
On the other thread about this topic I mentioned that while at CHS I was suspended for calling a teacher a bitch. No threats, no physical violence, and it was my one and only discipline issue that did not involve attendance so there was no history of behavior issues. It was agreed on that I deserved to be suspended for that. Why the sudden change of heart?
sprout said:
It sounds like Robbinsdale SD took away the option to suspend for infractions like defiance, disrespect, insubordination, gang affiliation, harassment, bullying, physical contact, property damage, and use and/or possession of alcohol and drugs.
However, it seems like the teacher is not aware of any new discipline policies for these infractions. From the article, it appears there are no disciplinary measures or supports at all for these students-but that impression may or may not be correct. When the most extreme option is removed, I would assume something else would be put in its place.
It will be interesting to see what our own district does to address this.
Doing this well is going to cost $$$, and we need to spend them, although they will have to be paid for by cuts to something else.
Kids who are disrupting the classroom are going to have to go someplace, and be managed by someone. Not all behaviors can be dealt with in the classroom, by a single teacher who is also trying to teach 25 or 30 other youth. So if we reduce out-of-school suspensions, something else will be needed.
The right answer may well be a thoughtful in-school suspension program (or intervention room, or whatever we choose to call it), with low student to teacher/counselor ratios, where behavior issues can be addressed and work can be completed until a student can be returned to the classroom. The people running it need to also have the training to deal with Special Education issues, since suspension of classified students is a major issue. Columbia doesn't have this, or at least doesn't have it to the extent that will be needed to make the change that is needed.
I also think that, given the current over-suspension of classified students, we need to recognize that keeping students in-school instead of sending them home may lead to some additional out-of-district placements, as schools are forced to recognize depth of some students' issues, rather than just putting them out of sight via suspension.
Nov 20, 2014 at 6:18am Edited
If it costs money to do this and we are not spending more money but are, instead, cutting other things, then students will be hurt.
And the destruction of public education by 1,000 cuts continues.
And the destruction of public education by 1,000 cuts continues.
Nov 20, 2014 at 7:20am Edited
sprout said:
BTW: The Wikipedia entry for RTI can provide some insight into it's pro's/con's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_to_intervention
And PBIS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_behavior_support
It seems both of these are targeted more to LD / SPED students, and less to general education. Which then speaks to the assumptions the Superintendent is making about the students who have these infractions.
If this is all the district prepared in terms of a 'new' way to manage students with fairly severe infractions, it makes sense that the teacher/writer of the article is reporting as she is.
ETA: I really hope SOMSD is more thoughtful than this.
RTI and PBIS aren't limited to any one subset of kids. These are holistic approaches to an entire school.
RTI is academic. The heart of RTI is using data to identify which kids are not meeting grade level standards, then giving them interventions (tutoring, one-on-one reading, etc.) and seeing how they respond. If they start doing better, job done. If they still struggle, more interventions are tried.
PBIS is behavioral. PBIS focuses on preventing misbehavior, rather than punishing it. Kids are explicitly told what's expected. PBIS requires active modeling by adults. Like RTI, it uses data-driven interventions.
Both are within the scope of best practices for schools. I think we already do a kind of modified RTI in the schools. "Fill your bucket" is a motif you often see in school using PBIS, and I see it here. But I don't see PBIS systematically in our schools. If you walk on the playground in any of the elementary schools, you won't see adults actively engaging with kids. You'll basically see kids going wild with a couple monitors on the edge, making sure no one gets hurt.
Both RTI and PBIS can be very good, but can be a challenge to implement, especially if you lack the resources. Our school district tends to be very poor at follow through. So any changes need to be really well planned and remain a priority.
I have heard a lot of "fill your bucket" in early elementary here, but I don't have a sense of what it would look like in the far-less-personal setting of a high school, where each teacher deals with a far larger number of students each day.
And, as you say, it takes resources, ranging from teachers to lunch monitors...
And, as you say, it takes resources, ranging from teachers to lunch monitors...
Isn't that what it's always about though? The allocation of money is generally what indicates whose needs are being prioritized by the district at that time.
Nov 20, 2014 at 10:57am Edited
The one thing I know for sure is if we have behavior problems in class it will reflect in a bad reputation for the school district and destroy housing values.
And active parenting is key to so much.. less behavior problems and better school outcomes.
And active parenting is key to so much.. less behavior problems and better school outcomes.
Nov 20, 2014 at 2:44pm Edited
sprout said:
Isn't that what it's always about though? The allocation of money is generally what indicates whose needs are being prioritized by the district at that time.
It takes resources, but RTI also has the potential to save money by keeping kids on track academically. Similarly, if you reduce suspensions, you may be able to save money on all the paperwork and resources used on school discipline. There are some good studies about the effect of PBIS. It all depends on the quality of the people you have and how you implement. But if you drop a big reform on employees (here, the teachers) without their input and involvement, don't be surprised when it doesn't work.
Too often we act like we can sprinkle some differentiated instruction pixie dust and with a pinch of IB, RTI or PBIS and everything will be magically awesome.
ALee said:
sprout said:
Isn't that what it's always about though? The allocation of money is generally what indicates whose needs are being prioritized by the district at that time.
It takes resources, but RTI also has the potential to save money by keeping kids on track academically. Similarly, if you reduce suspensions, you may be able to save money on all the paperwork and resources used on school discipline. There are some good studies about the effect of PBIS. It all depends on the quality of the people you have and how you implement. But if you drop a big reform on employees (here, the teachers) without their input and involvement, don't be surprised when it doesn't work.
Too often we act like we can sprinkle some differentiated instruction pixie dust and with a pinch of IB, RTI or PBIS and everything will be magically awesome.
And don't forget the consultant juju
Nov 20, 2014 at 3:01pm Edited
mod said:
And don't forget the consultant juju
If you're going to hire a consultant, you must remember to say the magic words, "klaatu verata nikto."
ctrzaska said:
It's never about money when you have it.
...Which, unfortunately, is why it's always about money in SOMSD.
(with re-link to Jeff Bennett's article on the State Aid formula):
http://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/opinion-new-jersey-myth-fair-school-aid/
When I was teaching in Jersey City Public Schools, there was a state mandated limit on the number of special ed kids that could be suspended on a given day. These kids were the source of much of the discipline problems in classrooms. Kids would be referred for discipline problems. The disciplinarians had to choose which kids were causing the most trouble. The rest went back to the classrooms.
Bugger-all to the teachers whose kids were returned with a "severe rebuke."
'nuff said?
Um, thanks for the observation. My observation would be that if "special ed kids" are the "source of much of the discipline problems", then you have a failing special education system.
'nuff said.
Formerlyjerseyjack said:
When I was teaching in Jersey City Public Schools, there was a state mandated limit on the number of special ed kids that could be suspended on a given day. These kids were the source of much of the discipline problems in classrooms. Kids would be referred for discipline problems. The disciplinarians had to choose which kids were causing the most trouble. The rest went back to the classrooms.
Bugger-all to the teachers whose kids were returned with a "severe rebuke."
'nuff said?
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Especially Given this
Reserve out-of-school suspension for only the most extreme cases of harm, focusing instead on dealing with behavior directly.
From
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/civil-rights-complaint-challenging-tracking-and-discipline-practices-south-orange