LITMIR.BIZ

       Introduction

      Teaching is much more difficult than it used to be. This lament is common among teachers and administrators. Sometimes this sentiment is founded on mounting paperwork and professional responsibilities. Other times, it is a result of the ever-changing bureaucratic requirements of the job. But the most common reason for this complaint is student behavior.

      Seasoned educators have said that they wish teaching were more like it was when they first started—when students and parents alike revered teachers. Novice teachers come in expecting respectful, hardworking students to be the rule and not the exception; they foresee neither the number nor the depth of the challenges awaiting them. Whether seasoned or novice, teachers having to devote more time to discipline than instruction is a shared frustration.

      While some believe that zero-tolerance policies are appropriate to deal with discipline issues, I have found in my experience that holding in-depth discussions with students and building relationships with them is far more effective. Because of the inability to build relationships with students and find effective solutions to behavior problems, students are often funneled out of school into the juvenile and criminal justice systems as a result of zero-tolerance policies. The following sections discuss this shift in more detail, after which I provide an overview of the rest of the book.

School Discipline

      Discipline problems are prevalent in U.S. public schools and continue to be one of the greatest challenges in education (Muscott et al., 2004). According to C. Stephen Wallis (1995), “The bad behavior and loss of respect exhibited daily in America’s public schools indicate an institution in deep trouble” (p. 17). School discipline is a prevalent problem and does not discriminate among schools; school discipline is everybody’s problem (Barton, Coley, & Wenglinsky, 1998). “Many public school teachers cite student attitudes, such as apathy and disrespect for teachers, as a major problem facing schools today” (Chen, 2019). Schools in cities, in suburbs, and in rural areas serving students from all racial backgrounds experience the same struggles with student behavior. These problems are critical factors in student academic achievement and support, placing the issue of classroom order and school discipline front and center in school reform efforts to enhance student performance.

      School discipline problems and student misbehavior don’t only negatively affect academic achievement; they also negatively affect teachers’ attitudes (Jackson, 1998). Mike Ford (2013) states:

      The specific ways a disruptive student might hurt the learning ability of other students are fairly self-evident. One effect might be decreased teacher effectiveness…. A teacher who spends large chunks of his or her time dealing with student discipline is not spending time on instruction. Inevitably, other students in a disruptive environment will suffer.

      Teachers must maintain control of the class; otherwise, they cannot teach effectively. Even teachers who generally have control of their class and possess strong classroom management skills grow frustrated after encountering numerous class disruptions and abundant disrespect. Such environments have been linked to teacher stress and attrition.

      Teacher burnout has become a critical concern for many interested in teacher attrition (Chan, 2006). In the United States, half of new teachers are leaving the profession within the first five years (Lambert & McCarthy, 2006). One of the major reasons for teacher attrition is job dissatisfaction, with almost 25 percent of these departures due to problems related to student misbehavior (Ingersoll, 2003). Youki Terada (2018) states:

      Teacher stress is high partly because the demands of the job can lead to emotional exhaustion, which arises as teachers try to manage the emotional needs of their students in addition to their academic needs. Not all students come to school ready to learn, and distracted or disruptive students can quickly drain a teacher’s emotional energy.

      According to Julian Stanley (2014), 91 percent of teachers experience high levels of stress, and as many as 41 percent of teachers leave their jobs within the first five years (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014).

      When examining the causes for unruly student behavior that hinders academic success, several factors deserve scrutiny. A majority of the research on school discipline suggests that poverty, lack of social skills, lack of parental involvement, disintegration of family structure, television and media, and students’ home environments contribute to disruptive behavior (Atkins et al., 2002; Bear, 1998; Skiba & Peterson, 2003). These are powerful—and sometimes impossible—factors for educators to overcome. Most schools find it challenging to manage disruptive student behaviors, such as violence, antisocial conduct, bullying, talking back, and absenteeism, with any level of effectiveness (Barbadoro, 2017).

      Because these factors are beyond educators’ control, it is easy to point to them whenever disruption festers in classroom settings and when a negative school climate persists after failed attempts to repair it. I have been guilty of this myself. When I was a dean of students working in a Chicago suburban high school, I took it personally when students misbehaved or when the negative school climate didn’t improve. I viewed my successes and failures on the job as reflections of who I was as a person. On days when student behavior was good in the building and there were no fights, I felt proud. On days when I had to process numerous discipline referrals for disrespect and insubordination or constantly break up fights, I carried a negative attitude around with me. Unfortunately, for quite some time, I had far more bad days than good.

      As a result, I started doubting myself. My self-esteem faltered. I questioned whether I could do anything to improve student behavior. The tendency to be hard on oneself is a human affliction, and I certainly suffered with it. I struggled so mightily because I cared so deeply about the students and the success of the school. Meanwhile, I suffered from another human affliction—the tendency to shift blame. The frustration of disrespectful students and murmuring teachers wore on me, as it often does on educators in similar situations. In an effort to protect my image, I shared the school’s statistics when teachers or community members mentioned the school’s failing reputation.

      This south suburban high school in Chicago had a population of almost 1,200 students, and over 59 percent of the students were from low-income households, 20 percent had individualized education programs (IEPs), and 3 percent were homeless. The student population in this school was 94 percent African American, 3 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent white. The school’s average ACT score was 16.6, compared to the Illinois state average of 20.8 and the national average of 21 (Illinois Report Card, 2018). It became my standby to quote these facts when teachers complained about student misbehavior, a gang presence in the school, or the number of verbal and physical altercations that occurred regularly.

Zero Tolerance

      At this time, zero tolerance was very popular. Many school districts adopted zero-tolerance policies to send the message that certain student behaviors were verboten. According to Russell J. Skiba and Kimberly Knesting (2001) of the Safe and Responsive Schools Project (now called the Equity Project), zero tolerance quickly spread among educators concerned about an epidemic of youth violence, and school boards across the country adopted zero-tolerance

Скачать книгу