![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyOther than that one area, I think it's a great place, or it was when I attended. Ironically, the best thing about it (the fact that they, compared to most schools in the city, were more likely to treat the kids like adults rather than prisoners) probably exacerbated the situation where students were allowed to fall through the cracks.
And I don't mean to imply that the teachers didn't make an effort. Individual teachers might care very much about their failing students. However, the classes there aren't any smaller than at other schools (30 - 35 per class) and the teachers don't have any fewer classes than elsewhere. You can't expect a teacher with 180+ students to really be able to help every student individually. (Indeed, I think ALL schools in the city would benefit from capping their class size at about half what it currently is, and that all middle and high school teachers would benefit from being assigned fewer classes and more planning periods per term. There's nothing that any particular school can do about that, although I wish that at the very least the schools in poorer areas were given the resources to do this.)
That's why individual efforts by teachers aren't really sufficient, especially when those individual efforts have to be sought out by the students. There needs to be a set program to identify those kids who are failing or are on the cusp, and get them structured help before they have to ask for it. Other schools in the city have easy-to-locate tutoring programs. Some of them even have mandatory ones for kids whose grades dip below a certain level. There's no reason at all the selective high schools can't do the same thing. Heck, peer tutoring is one of those things that looks great on a transcript. They'd have no lack of volunteers.
It's possible such a program exists now and things have started to change since I was there. I doubt it, but it's definitely possible. If anything like this existed when I was there, though, I never heard about it. And I was on a first name basis with the people at Guidance. I'm sure they would've told me.
And I don't mean to imply that the teachers didn't make an effort. Individual teachers might care very much about their failing students. However, the classes there aren't any smaller than at other schools (30 - 35 per class) and the teachers don't have any fewer classes than elsewhere. You can't expect a teacher with 180+ students to really be able to help every student individually. (Indeed, I think ALL schools in the city would benefit from capping their class size at about half what it currently is, and that all middle and high school teachers would benefit from being assigned fewer classes and more planning periods per term. There's nothing that any particular school can do about that, although I wish that at the very least the schools in poorer areas were given the resources to do this.)
That's why individual efforts by teachers aren't really sufficient, especially when those individual efforts have to be sought out by the students. There needs to be a set program to identify those kids who are failing or are on the cusp, and get them structured help before they have to ask for it. Other schools in the city have easy-to-locate tutoring programs. Some of them even have mandatory ones for kids whose grades dip below a certain level. There's no reason at all the selective high schools can't do the same thing. Heck, peer tutoring is one of those things that looks great on a transcript. They'd have no lack of volunteers.
It's possible such a program exists now and things have started to change since I was there. I doubt it, but it's definitely possible. If anything like this existed when I was there, though, I never heard about it. And I was on a first name basis with the people at Guidance. I'm sure they would've told me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-07-13 05:16 am (UTC)Grades just have to go, that's all. The whole concept of 'grading' has turned so toxic that it isn't salvageable - of COURSE it's engendered cheating in every conceivable form, and a hostile, cynical, competitive attitude even in those who don't cheat, and a culture of situational ethics. As long as grades are the goal, students will chase that goal by whatever means they can, whether or not they're learning anything but 'How To Play The Game'.
Our popular culture doesn't help any. There we have James T. Kirk at Starfleet, literally caught cheating on a test of character and suffering no consequences for it - that's the most obvious example, but there are lots of others. Cheating is overtly discouraged and condemned, but tacitly encouraged and admired: as we see again and again in the movies and on TV the best way to win is to break all the rules and get away with it
These people who want harsh punishments for those who cheat, I always suspect it's because they're cheaters themselves, or have been in the past, or they know their children are. Therefore the classic denial and projection mechanism cuts in, and they're all zealous to teach the evildoers a lesson in order to prove that THEY would never, ever even think of cheating. Yeah right.
Right-wing authoritarianism, that whole want-to-punish-the-divergent mind-set, is pretty much identical to the fifyj maladaptive schema domain in Schema Therapy. Going along with Alice Miller, I would call it a cycle-of-abuse phenomenon; a habitually contemptuous, punitive way of thinking about others.that stems from having been habitually punished and treated with contempt. Unfortunately, that mind-set is generally impervious to appeals to either logic or compassion, which were not much taught in school.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-13 05:32 am (UTC)(Now there are comments coming in from students at other specialized high schools claiming that such a thing would never happen there. If the kids at Bronx Science or the alums of Brooklyn Tech really think so, all I can say is they're positively delusional. I don't believe for one minute there's any less cheating there than anywhere else, and there may be more there than at less selective schools.)
Our popular culture doesn't help any. There we have James T. Kirk at Starfleet, literally caught cheating on a test of character and suffering no consequences for it - that's the most obvious example, but there are lots of others. Cheating is overtly discouraged and condemned, but tacitly encouraged and admired: as we see again and again in the movies and on TV the best way to win is to break all the rules and get away with it
That's an interesting point. I want to have something intelligent, or at least witty to say here, but I don't think I do. I'll see if I have a response in the morning.
Right-wing authoritarianism, that whole want-to-punish-the-divergent mind-set, is pretty much identical to the fifyj maladaptive schema domain in Schema Therapy. Going along with Alice Miller, I would call it a cycle-of-abuse phenomenon; a habitually contemptuous, punitive way of thinking about others.that stems from having been habitually punished and treated with contempt. Unfortunately, that mind-set is generally impervious to appeals to either logic or compassion, which were not much taught in school.
I find parenting drama to be fascinating. I know I shouldn't, but I kinda *love* participating in the inevitable flamewars that show up every time people discuss any aspect of childcare.
There was a recent set of articles about spanking, and I got involved in a discussion with one guy about alternatives to same. He asked for workable alternatives to spanking for toddlers (clearly expecting there were none) and I replied with an example of how, if you have to leave and your kid doesn't want to put on his shoes, you might bring the shoes directly to him and ask "Are you putting them on, or am I?"
He was very upset when I said that if the kid said "YOU ARE!" you should, as that was the choice you'd given the kid, put them on for them. This is a toddler, it's not that big a deal. I then presented some other choices you might give if that's untenable. His only response was that "you're teaching the kid that you'll change your approach if he's disobedient".
Several comments down the line, he still couldn't conceive that anybody might possibly have any framework for the caregiver/child relationship that didn't rely on the paradigm of obedience. It's wrong to work with kids, it's wrong to negotiate with them, it's wrong to consider their point of view, it's wrong to try to teach them to make decisions, it's wrong to try to reason with them (even if that weren't totally impossible, of course), it's wrong to respect them as individuals (even if you know you have more experience and knowledge and therefore of course give your views more weight) it's wrong to ever have any paradigm that doesn't revolve around you being the boss of them.
It was like talking to a brick wall. Encouraging the kid: Bad. Punishing the kid: Good.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-13 03:50 pm (UTC)Or, as I heard it from Matt Groening long before I'd heard of Alice Miller, "Insults teach how to insult, punishment teaches how to punish, humiliation teaches how to humiliate." And so we end up with people like the one our hostess tells of in her reply:
Unfortunately, that mind-set is generally impervious to appeals to either logic or compassion, which were not much taught in school.
Not only that, the mental armor of punitivism is proof even against impacts with reality, which in the case of other ideologies can open the cracks that might flood the ideologue's brain with light. I wish I had a solution.