I have two rather different responses to this article.
First, I have a response which, while it is based on my factual knowledge and experience, is profoundly emotional. It provides an excellent example of my attitude that both rationality and emotionality need to work hand-in-hand in order to create a balanced view of the world and, indeed, of reality itself.
Second is my own response to the problem; and it is a very real problem with which every educator has dealt to one degree or another. That is, how to deal with disruptive students.
I will begin with a set of excerpts which I found to be emotionally triggering. (Please forgive me for borrowing a term from those I refer to as the woking brain dead, but it is an effective descriptor in this case.)
> The worst-behaved students effectively are taught that the rules don’t apply to them in the same way they apply to others. <
And > ...where a single agitated student has the power to seize control of any classroom he pleases.<
Finally, > And to the extent that student misbehavior is seen as being a product of trauma, anyone who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating that trauma. <
I tried to find evidence of the author’s source of his presumed expertise. I didn’t find any evidence that he ever taught in the classroom or worked with emotionally disturbed children. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply profoundly ignorant of reality. Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that he, like so many who made comments on this article, simply believes in magic punishment. Personal responsibility is of course one essential element of proper emotional development for all human beings. However, to dismiss the fact that children who are this emotionally disturbed are often victims of horrific abuse including being burned, beaten, and otherwise abused with the statement that one “who applies disciplinary measures to the student is accused of exacerbating the trauma” is an appalling attack on the needs of the most damaged and vulnerable members of our nation.
Most disciplinary action normally taken against a healthy, emotionally sound student, if taken against such children, would in fact be exacerbating the trauma. Stating a fact is not making an accusation.
I find the author’s opinion, which appears largely to be let us discipline these individuals as if they were not traumatized children, to be morally repugnant. I note in the comments a cold, callous and inhuman response on the part of many. The conviction that the way to handle brutalized, traumatized children is to punish them more effectively is inappropriate even in the last century. These children are not being taught to “seize control”. They are desperately acting out their terror and their fear of being placed in a situation where they feel profoundly threatened. No child wishes to have other children laugh at them, or fear them, or condemn them for being strange. assuming that these so troubled youngsters simply need discipline or isolation indicates something is very very wrong with a person who expresses that opinion. The spread of civilization and the advance of our culture should have gone beyond this.
So many who have never been in a classroom except as a student, so many who have never worked with the emotionally traumatized, so many who know nothing of the reality of these situations are so ready to make their arrogant, smug judgments. I spent much of my professional career dedicated to working with the poor, the traumatized, the wounded children of our society. At least when I open my mouth, you know that I have some experience upon which to base my opinions and my judgment.
End diatribe. Begin recommendation.
One of the points which I found irritating is the suggestion that suspension is some sort of magic solution. Suspension works only when parents respond appropriately to it. One of my students was a particular problem. Although I knew that it would inevitably follow its normal course there were times when I simply had no choice but to suspend him. The problem was that once he was suspended, he went home, took off his shirt, got on his bike, and then would ride around across the street from the school laughing at all the children who were denied his freedom. Then he was off to whatever adventures he wished, since his parents took no action in response to his discipline.
In short, any disciplinary action can be effective if it is appropriate to the child and if the parents are supportive of the school. Any disciplinary action can also be counterproductive and damaging to discipline if it is inappropriate to the child and the parents do not support the school.
As a few commenters pointed out there are very effective programs which can actually help troubled children. Obviously, they should be utilized. However, I must acknowledge that the author makes one excellent point which must be implemented for the benefit of all, including the troubled children.
When the policy of placing children in the “least restrictive environment“ was first adopted in California, I was a young teacher. I was asked by our district psychologist to attempt placing such a child in my class. I thought the idea was an excellent one and gave it a try. To some extent it was successful. Although he did require a great deal of my attention, he was certainly not disruptive or a problem. I found, however, that the other students tended to take advantage of him.
So in a sense it was not a success. The least restrictive environment for this youngster was an environment in which he was not in a position where other students would take advantage of his trusting nature. This is the point to be made. Students who are truly emotionally disruptive and may throw a tantrum in which they endanger themselves and other students are not being indulged when they are not suspended. The abuse that is occurring is not abuse by that child. The abuse is being accused by a system which has placed them in an environment in which they are emotionally incapable of functioning.
To repeat for the sake of clarity , a least restrictive environment is an environment in which both the child and those surrounding the child are sufficiently secure that they can function effectively. The mistake the overly liberal are making is thinking that least restrictive is a term which simply means placing the child in a normal classroom. But that is extremely restrictive for a traumatized child. It is in fact in itself a form of abuse.
The problem is complex and difficult. Simplistic solutions will not be effective. There are many ways in which children can be at least partially integrated into the normal school environment. These should be employed. But magic punishments have never worked. They never will.
