Thursday, August 24, 2006

Corporal Punishment and Texas Schools

Corporal punishment adds just one small fear factor back into the system.

The Dallas Morning News reports the following:

A sign stuck to the principal's desk outlaws whining. A blue jar on a nearby shelf claims to hold the ashes of problem students.

But it's the custom-made, arm-length pine paddle that delivers the old-school discipline that Anthony Price says has helped turn his junior high school around.

He stands behind a practice headed toward extinction.

Most local students returning to school this month will not face corporal punishment. But in a time when child psychologists, Dr. Phil and even Supernanny tout timeouts and tenderness, a dwindling number of holdout school districts continue to believe in the power of the paddle.

Some spank their students for missing homework, others for untucked shirttails. They have the support of the state Legislature and their communities and say that despite research to the contrary, they're helping a generation that needs some old-fashioned remedy.

"We, as Americans, have let our school system get a little bit out of control," Mr. Price said. "I love children, but when I see how many are going astray, it's heartbreaking. ... Corporal punishment adds just one small fear factor back into the system."

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingWhen Anthony Price, an advocate of paddling, states, "I love children..." it seems to me that he must define what he means by love. When one beats another that is less powerful than him/her self is this an expression of love or is it merely bullying? When one exercises arbitrary power over another in a physical manner how is this different than controlling behavior through fear?

The article goes on to report that many states, especially those in the south, consider paddling or other forms of corporal punishment as normative. Advocates of this normative approach to discipline must provide a reasoned rationale for implementation of this degrading and often brutal form of punishment and show how it differs from, say, torture designed to exact desired language in the form of a confession--even to deeds not done. Fear is, of course, a great motivator. When one fears one is more likely to comply with a desired outcome. But fear is not a desired tool of democracy. Fear is the choice of dictators. From Hitler to Stalin, Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden, Mao to Fidel, fear of physical harm is the stuff that keeps the populace in line. Dare to dissent and one can count on pain and suffering. To avoid that pain one simply toes the line.

But Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Osama, Mao and Fidel and all others that aspire to dictatorial power are merely bullies, using their position of power and strength to terrorize those with less power or influence.

Take a look at Mr. Price in the photo above. Here is a big, powerful man with a wooden paddle in his hand like a knight wielding his sword at the enemy. There is no indication in the photo that Price towers over his 6th, 7th and 8th grade charges. What is clear is that he is a man obsessed with the power of his office, the authority granted him by the state, and a desire to maintain order in his school building no matter what the price. Mr. Price is a bully not far removed from the likes of other bullies that run countries through fear and intimidation. There is nothing moral or ethical or decent about a grown man beating a child into submission.

Price is proud of the fact that his building is quiet and well ordered. The simple fact is that anyone can get anybody to do anything given enough time and adequate instruments of pain. Of course the halls and classrooms are quiet. If they aren't students will be beaten into submission. There is no secret to maintaining order in this manner. Just be cruel and unyielding and those under you will appear to comply. Underneath the surface, however, is a resistant strain that resents the oppression and seeks ways to return the favor.


Monday, August 21, 2006

'Infidel' book ban repeal unlikely

'Infidel' book ban repeal unlikely


"Kentucky's century-old "infidel" books ban might be archaic and unconstitutional, but don't look for it to disappear any time soon, lawmakers said this week.

"Republicans and Democrats alike predict legislators will shy away from the issue when they convene in 2007.

"Many of my colleagues are fearful of taking a vote that would tend to put them on the side of infidels," said state Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington.

"Lawmakers expressed shock when they were told of the existence of the law that says "no book or other publication of a sectarian, infidel or immoral character, or that reflects on any religious denomination, shall be used or distributed in any common school."

"But as news spread this week, politicians questioned the wisdom of removing it from the statutes.

"There's nobody that wants to get on record saying 'I'm against God and Christianity,'" said state Sen. David Karem, D-Louisville."

This ran in the Lexington, KY HERALD-LEADER. While my first instinct was to laugh out loud at the language of the Kentucky law I quickly caught myself as I thought about the fact that in America, founded on principles of freedom of expression, religion and the like that political hacks of either party felt they had to be more like the Taliban than enlightened Americans. Banning the infidel runs through fundamentalist thought but thinking like that that cannot stand up to critical examination is, I submit, not worth the paper it is printed on. To be fearful of a handful of radical religious "nuts" that, although they have captured the presidency of the United States, are, and will remain for some time to come, a fringe group is simply unAmerican. Stand up Kentucky lawmakers. Repeal this law and join the 21st Century.




Technorati : , , , , , , ,
Del.icio.us : , , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 19, 2006

What are Teachers Responsible For in the Classroom?

Gary Fenstermacher argued some time ago that there is no causal relationship between teaching and learning. The flawed idea that if, as a teacher I teach, that this is somehow translated into student performance must be replaced by something more appropriate to the way learning actually takes place. It is important to note that Fenstermacher does not imply that there is no relationship between teaching and learning, far from it. Rather, the relationship is not causal but reciprocal. If teachers don't teach then students never have a chance at learning. What teachers are responsible for is teaching.

  • Creating inviting and energetic classrooms
  • Planning lessons so as to invite students into the learning process
  • Knowing what they are talking about (content knowledge is important)
  • Knowing how to teach (so is professional knowledge)
  • Executing plans in such a way so as to help students focus on the task(s) at hand

In all this students also have a significant responsibility--students must student. But what does it mean to student? What must students do in order to learn? Well, they must be engaged fully in the experience of learning. They must be willing participants in the process. They must do the work asked of them--reading, writing and so on as serious exercises leading toward the construction of new knowledge.

If teachers fail to teach it is likely that students will not student. But, if teachers do teach there is no guarantee that students will learn. Learning only occurs when students desire that which is being taught. If, for whatever reason, students see little value in the work of the classroom then they tend not to engage in that work. If they fail to engage in the work of the classroom then it is likely that no significant learning will take place.

As we begin a new school year the idea of focusing on assigning appropriate responsibility to teachers and students is something to think about.


Technorati : , ,
Del.icio.us : , ,