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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
mod said:
And don't forget the consultant juju
ctrzaska said:
It's never about money when you have it.
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?
Renovated apartment in Bloomfield
3 Bd | 2Full Ba
$2,850
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
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