Teachers That Make the Extra Effort Can Make All the Difference

I would like to continue our most recent class discussion on bullying and the accountability (if any) the schools should assume. I absolutely believe schools should be held accountable for bullying; most of the time, but this issue isn't that cut and dry as a "yes they should" or "no they shouldn't" assume responsibility. It seems we all agree that schools can be held somewhat responsible for bullying on school grounds, along with the kid and parents. The question becomes when should the school be responsible for off grounds bullying. I recently posted a blog about a bullying incident in Alabama, where it was the second time one particular student beat up another particular student in the same school year. The first time was just a couple punches to the face, causing a black eye, but no further damage. The parents still went with their son the school to discuss with the principle (or vice principle I'm not totally sure) about other minor incidents such as pushing into lockers, knocking books out or the boys hands, etc. Nothing overtly physical, but bullying none the less. The parents said to the school staff that they predicted another incident, and feared it would be worse since the bully had not gotten any consequence for any of the bullying so far. The school thought the parents were overreacting and basically said boys will be boys and they don't have the necessary staff to devote to monitoring the interactions of one bully and victim.

The parents were right, there was another incident and it was much worse. The boy who had been beaten up by the same bully and pushed into lockers all school year is now in a hospital room with multiple broken bones and fractures. They had one picture on CNN when I first saw the story and I had to look away, his face was had no natural color to it, it was smothered in totality by purple and blue bruises. The bigger picture here is not whether the school should be held responsible, but maybe one teacher or counselor had noticed this ongoing bullying earlier, maybe this could have been prevented. It's not that teachers should be babysitters, but If they make the extra effort it can perhaps make all the difference.

Does anybody really not think the school should be held somewhat liable in the case above. The bullying was happening on and off school grounds (the more physical done off school grounds) there was physical evidence it was occurring and the parents went to the school to warn them that a more brutal attack was not possible but "likely" to happen, and the school still did nothing. In fact they did less than nothing by insinuating the parents were overreacting, so they really didn't even assure them that they would make a conscious effort to ensure their son was safe at school. This is one example of many that I would argue that the school should absolutely be somewhat responsible for not taking the bullying issue seriously.

In one blog I read it referred to the low pay public school teachers receive. I couldn't agree more, which is exactly why most teachers would want to make the extra effort to ensure the safety of their students. If they aren't becoming teachers for the money then they are because they legitimately care for the kids right? If they legitimately care about their kids why would not be concerned about what happens to them during off school hours. Teachers are not expected to be babysitters; but they are mentors and could, I'm not saying "should", but could make the difference of a kid being constantly bullied so his/her education experience is one of pain and fear and frustration or by picking up on it in its early stages taking the first steps to put a stop to it so the aforementioned example doesn't have to happen again.

Babysitters, or Teachers?

After leaving class today, I found myself pondering the cyber bullying debate. I do not believe schools should be held resposible for bullying done off campus. Now, I am not saying that school's shouldn't be responsible for bullying done on campus; However, where is the line going to be drawn.

If Jake's and Brandon's facts were true seventy-six percent of cyber bullying occurs in high school. These are students, that range from fourteen to eightteen years old. That being said, these are students are on the verge of being adults or are in their late teen years. They should know bullying is uncalled for, and shouldn't be done. These kids should be held responsible for bullying they do off campus, not the schools. The thought that school's should be is like defining a high school as an all day babysitter. This is saying they should watch the students not only in their walls, but also the seventeen hours students aren't around. One argument I heard in class was many parents work atleast until five o'clock. Therefore, students are watched a lot more by the schools throughout the day. Well than how about we hold school's resposible for all parts of the student's life? When a student vandalizes a building at three a.m., does drugs, drinks, or gets arrested, how about we blame the school for that too? It is the parents' job to install good morals into their children. While the school should enforce these morals on campus, it has almost no control over students after three.

If the schools are so resposible, then pay the teachers a babysitter fee on top of their dismal salaries. Schools are not all day babysitters, and are too often a easy scapegoat for the countries problems. Teen suicide, drinking, bullying, and drug use are all pinned on them unfairly. They are not babysitters, and not responsible for off campus activities. These are responsibilities of parents' and students' themselves.

Are standardized tests a good representative of how smart a child really is?

As we all have learned one of the most influential people in modern day physics/science is Albert Einstein. However, Einstein failed a college entrance exam. I don't think any person would change the beliefs that Einstein was a genius because he failed a standardized test. Thomas Edison was considered "to stupid to learn" and yet he has been considered a lead inventor in history and influential in modern day civilization. Winston Churchill failed the 6th grade. These are all extremely influential people in our history and considered "genius". I do not change my opinion of them because they failed a standardized test or school.

If three influential people in our history prove that testing or how they did in school does not determine how smart they are as an individual, then why is this America's primary form of determining how smart a child is? We just have three extremely major exceptions in history?

For me personally I am a horrible test taker, have extreme test anxiety, and do not think that scores on these tests are a good representation of what I know. But teachers and employers recognize that because they know and relate to me as an individual, not a statistic in a standardized test. Some students are hands on learners, what are we doing as a nation to help students with those types of learning skills, because testing is not benefiting these students.

As talked about in class there has not been enough time to determine the outcomes of the standardized testing efforts. But we are requiring the teachers to "find the time" to properly prepare the students to pass the test, or there could be consequences. Sounds like we are putting to much pressure on students, and teachers, to pass a test that we really don't have the statistical data to show if it is beneficial or not.

Also, our nation was founded on supporting dreams and independence. Why have we taken it upon ourselves to label or determine how children should be, and not as they are? Part of an educational "journey" is to eventually determine what you as an individual enjoy, what you are good at, and what you would like to do when you grow up. Education is giving children the tools to successfully do this on their own, not telling them what to be. Money should be spent on giving children these tools, giving them a well rounded education in all areas, so they can determine what they want to be on their own. Not putting money and such importance on having to be good science and math test takers.

Teachers, why not?

Thinking about the topics of debate continued as I left class today. I do understand the idea that schools have little control over what happens outside of school and yes this may be true. Teachers spend an incredible amount of time with children. While teachers may become teachers to teach specific curriculum; I would have to say that they are child care providers during that time. As teachers observe children who may have learning disabilities, they also are available for the reliable observances of peer relations. When do we turn the other way from escalating problems just because it’s three o’clock and schools out? I can remember a time in middle school when there was a battle arising between two peer groups, this escalated into a decision to meet after school. At the end of the school day one Friday, alliances were emerged and pretty soon half of the school kids where marching down to a common park to “brawl”. Being that is was after three o’clock the school administration did not have to legally do anything about this. However, one administers moral judgment entered the equation. The Vice Principal single handily drove down to the meeting grounds because he overheard talk (imagine that) in the hallways about what was going to take place and then was able to break up the fight. This may be a rare occasion that someone was able to stop it became physical, but what if every faculty member tried a little harder to prevent some of the insensible measures our youth get involved in? Maybe it is so that it takes a village to raise a child?
I am not taking any of the responsibility off of the parents because they play an obvious huge roll and can control in some since what their children are up to. I would hope that most teachers get into the field that they do because they want to work with the youth and maybe be that influential teacher that we all remember having when we were growing up. The influential teacher doesn’t have to be the one that taught you how to finally master that algebra equation but maybe the one that did something about the minor bullying that started, that teacher could potentially save a life. One way that both parent and teachers can do to hopefully prevent this tragic headline news from happening is opening up the lines of communication. One or even two parent teacher conference a year does not seem justifiable to the amount of time children spend in school. Unfortunately, some parents do not even participate in the conferences that are offered due to work and overall demands of life. As we all are aware of technology now available, we could use this to stay more connect with our children’s teachers such as emails regularly. Teachers may not have to do anything at all afterschool hours but if you could, why not?

Schools In Charge of Preventing Suicide?

In class we have discussed ideas for schools having suicide prevention programs and/or schools being responsible if a student does commit suicide. I don’t know if I agree that a school should be responsible with a student committing suicide. Yes, children spend probably half of their day at school and teachers or administrators are completely responsible for the safety of students while on school property and during school functions I find it to be difficult for administrators and teachers protecting students off campus. I would say that they are responsible for a committed suicide by a student if on campus or if there is evidence that the teachers did nothing to prevent the proven bullying or the suicide from occurring.
I actually find suicide prevention to be much more of a responsibility for the parents. They are more frequently present in their child’s life and responsible for protecting their child. I think if a parent feels the need to have a suicide prevention program they should talk to their child themselves. Or another option may be a counselor if the parent feels it is necessary for their child.
I find it could be a good idea to some how implement suicide prevention programs in schools I am unsure how well it would work. I was unable to find statistics on how these programs actually have benefitted or lower suicide rates. Also, I think it might be hard to implement these courses into an everyday curriculum with all the other requirements teachers are all ready suppose to have in their curriculum. I am still not completely sold on this opinion that I have so if anyone does have a good argument against what I have said please comment and challenge my opinion.

No Child Left Behind Good or Bad?

Now is the general trend of standardized testing or No Child Left Behind actually beneficial for students in the United States? I currently do not think that it is the best way to teach kids in our school system. If you really dig into what it is doing for students I see hardly any benefits from standardized testing and No Child Left Behind. I know if you’re a parent that you would like to know your child is experiencing the same curriculum as other students and not getting taught something from a teacher that may be controversial or something you don’t agree with but NCLB actual contradicts what it says it does.
There are many bad things about NCLB that many people pass over I think when discussing this topic. The biggest problem is that teaching has changed to teaching for a test instead of learning the topic completely. This means that NCLB is currently dumbing-down curriculum standards. It relies completely on standardized test scores to label each student in different categories such as “needs improvement” or “above standards”. Also, standardized tests have been found to be bias as schools with a majority of Latinas, African-Americans, and Asian-Americans are scoring lower on the tests somewhat because of other reasons then bias questions like economic status, yes. But, also studies have shown test to have bias questions. This has labeled different ethnicities as less intelligent in the work space creating more difficultly finding jobs for certain people. I found one site that showed dropout rates to have increased since NCLB was put in place. All in all I believe that NCLB is hurting the learning of children in America.I also think that NCLB is putting and emphasis on the children who are falling behind which unfortunately is hurting the exceptionally intelligence students as we don’t push for them to a higher level.

The Four Dynamics of Sexual Abuse

After hearing quite a bit about sexual abuse in the news lately I was curious about the developmental affects caused by the perversion. After an encounter a child goes through four traumagenic dynamic. The dynamics are traumatic sexualization, betrayal, disempowerment, and finally stigmatization.

The first, traumatic sexualization is when the child’s sexuality is shaped in a developmentally inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion due to the abuse. This can occur when the child is repeatedly regarded by an offender for sexual behavior that is inappropriate to his or her level of development. It can occur when certain parts of a child’s anatomy are fetishized, or through the misconception and confusions about sexual behavior and sexual morality that are transmitted to the child from the offender. Children that have been traumatically sexualized may have an inappropriate repertoire of sexual behavior, with confusion and misconceptions about their sexual self-concepts, and with unusual emotional associations to sexual activities.

The second, betrayal, occurs when the child discovers that someone they were vitally dependent has caused them harm. This could refer to the actual abuser or a family member that didn’t or couldn’t do anything. Those children who are disbelieved, or blamed experience a greater sense of betrayal than those who are supported. A child who was suspicious of the abuser’s actions from the start may feel less betrayal.

The third, disempowerment, is the process in which a child’s will, desires, and senses of efficacy are continually contravened. The more authoritarian the abuser the more harm done to the child’s sense of power and control. This disempowerment is reinforced when children see their attempts to stop the abuse frustrated. It can be increased when children feel fear, are unable to make adults understand or believe what is happening, or realize how conditions of dependency have trapped them in the situation.

The final dynamic, stigmatization, is the negative connotations that are communicated to the child around the abuse and then become incorporated into the child’s self-image. These negative meanings come from many places such as the abuser, who may blame, or demean the victim. Stigmatization also comes from the attitudes that the victim hears from family or community. Stigmatization may thus grow out of the child’s prior knowledge or sense that the activity is considered deviant, or, after disclosure, people react shocked, hysterical, or blame the child.