I did want to note that the board is reviewing a discipline policy draft tomorrow night. I won’t be able to pull anything together to speak tomorrow night but I think I can make it by 8pm to hear that part of the discussion and chime in next time. I have strong feelings on this and believe that any policy on discipline must also address the underlying issues to challenging behavior in any student no matter where they go to school or where they fall on the equity spectrum. Why are we suspending children in a district that will refuse them eligibility for a 504 plan because they see a naturopath? Are poor schools really disruptive or is this in the eye of the beholder and really it is an inequitable and inconsistent discipline system combined with a medieval way of educating children that need more engagement, higher standards, people that care enough to give them a hard time about not showing up, and mentor relationships to learn.

Worth a read, esp. when it comes to Barr’s meetings with Arne Duncan, and talk of Duncan’s desire to commit billions of dollars of education stimulus $$$ to taking over at least 4,000 of the lowest performing schools nationwide in the next few years, and going Green Dot on them.

(For more, check here http://nyceducator.com/2009/05.....pizza.html and here http://susanohanian.org/outrage_fetch.php?id=545)

While negative reinforcement isn’t very good for changing attitudes….

So I am seeing a place where we agree. Again, I will post something specific to behavior but did want to say I saw this. It is semantics as well because positive and negative reinforcement are often misunderstood and misused by definition.

Steve – The same students that benefit from negative reinforcement are the same ones that also can handle direct instruction and standardized testing. Rules are necessary for people and clear consequences to breaking those rules as well. In this way, when someone breaks the rules we can say, “You made a choice to break the rules and these are the consequences that fall.” This actually is part of positive behavior support. However, punishment is a system that while it works for some people there are certainly things that could work better or just as well. In the driving example the punishment is why people slow down when they see the “punisher” or have elaborate electronic devices so they can be alerted to the “punisher” but all they have done is learned how to avoid punishment. The people who drive slower because it is the law are going to do this anyway but the people that drive slower because you can be punished for it are only learning new skills to get away with it. Look at our prison system and you can see that punishment without treatment only teaches new skills to avoid getting caught once you are released. In schools, some kids are going to follow the rules anyway and some kids are only going to follow the rules if the punisher is present or they could get caught. When kids have neurological stuff going on then you have to change the game completely and find news ways to support and teach the rules. A child with impulse control issues is having a terrible battle within themself. They know that they should not steal from backpacks and they can watch their hand doing the action while within their brain they are trying to make their hands stop. Admittedly some kids because of early life experiences on top of acquired or genetic neurological damage do not fully develop a conscience and just don’t care but even these kids can be supported using positive behavior supports.
I typically agree with what you have to say and will give the benefit of the doubt that it is hard to understand where you might be coming from in gleaning from blog topics. I am going to start a new post in the next day or two on behavior because I would like to know where you stand. If you really believe in punishment then I would not want you on the school board.