The problem we have nowadays is that we have a 19th century, German model of education that has had the discipline aspect of it removed. The Kindergarten-12 th grade model had originally come with corporal punishment, public humiliation (think dunce caps, cleaning erasers, and writing, "I will not..." a hundred times on the chalkboard), and, finally, permanent expulsion. The Germans, and Americans, recognized that this was necessary to force kids to behave well enough to teach with this model. Those things are all gone. I remember asking old teachers who had been teaching for 30 plus years when I started, whether there had been a significant change in bad behavior after the abolishment of corporal punishment in 1986 and permanent expulsion in 1990. To a person they acknowledged that, "It was dramatic and instantaneous," " Like a light switch being thrown," "Like the students were all suddenly possessed by Satan," etc. We force kids into an unnatural situation for over a decade, to learn in an unnatural way, and unless there is strict and meaningful punishment to curb unruly behavior, it doesn't really work very well. That shows the flaw in the model. Only a fraction of kids thrive in that model. I wasn't one of them (spanked twice, suspended numerous times, ditched every chance I got, and dropped out at 17). Yet, I read voraciously, have a 143 IQ, and thrived in college. Gatto was right. So was Charles Murray in "Real Education ". Though they proposed entirely different models, either one would work if it were implemented. To continue the German model without the German enforcement is futile.
Two comments: Principals should not be called away from their schools during the school day for meetings “downtown.” And Principals should dress professionally to convey an external sense of authority. And, yes, there are dress shoes that are comfortable to walk in.
They can be taught again though. I am trying. I am writing a curriculum called "Social Health" which will be a health class mandated by the state with HEAVY. emphasis on the etiquette and decorum necessary to living in a constitutional republic.
This is wonderful, and wonderfully put. (Why can't more of us in education write so compellingly?) I'll only add that I've also taught in schools where this wasn't necessary (to wit: a small progressivist school, and a very VERY small traditionalist school), but where chaos reigns, redefining the role of principal seems necessary (and these, artful steps to ensuring that).
I'll ask the epistemologically necessary question: are there any schools where something like this is practiced where students aren't learning well?
What I do know is that it's highly likely that the number would of schools that do this have lousy outcomes. Why?
At my old site, principals were supposed to be "present" in classrooms. What that amounted to was them VERY occasionally popping into random rooms. There was no rhyme or reason to their attendance. They would, however, leave some random note about what they saw that day.
In other words, their visits weren't meaningful. They weren't collecting daata. They weren't looking to support behavior or enforce schoolwide rules. They weren't looking to see which teachers needed additional support or training.
The principals who visited were, as they so often do, just checking a box. Ticking boxes, not the education of all children, became the goal of a policy that likely originated out of good intent but, as usual was not supported by instruction in clear, actionable steps.
>> "Unfortunately, there's no way I can know that."
Oh, I know — I wasn't expecting you to; I just find myself so convinced by your thesis that I want to shore it up by actively hunting for counter-examples!
The problem we have nowadays is that we have a 19th century, German model of education that has had the discipline aspect of it removed. The Kindergarten-12 th grade model had originally come with corporal punishment, public humiliation (think dunce caps, cleaning erasers, and writing, "I will not..." a hundred times on the chalkboard), and, finally, permanent expulsion. The Germans, and Americans, recognized that this was necessary to force kids to behave well enough to teach with this model. Those things are all gone. I remember asking old teachers who had been teaching for 30 plus years when I started, whether there had been a significant change in bad behavior after the abolishment of corporal punishment in 1986 and permanent expulsion in 1990. To a person they acknowledged that, "It was dramatic and instantaneous," " Like a light switch being thrown," "Like the students were all suddenly possessed by Satan," etc. We force kids into an unnatural situation for over a decade, to learn in an unnatural way, and unless there is strict and meaningful punishment to curb unruly behavior, it doesn't really work very well. That shows the flaw in the model. Only a fraction of kids thrive in that model. I wasn't one of them (spanked twice, suspended numerous times, ditched every chance I got, and dropped out at 17). Yet, I read voraciously, have a 143 IQ, and thrived in college. Gatto was right. So was Charles Murray in "Real Education ". Though they proposed entirely different models, either one would work if it were implemented. To continue the German model without the German enforcement is futile.
Possessed by Satan! That means a radical shift, doesn’t it? If I had ever paid attention in public school, I might’ve noticed it. lol.
Lol. Yep. That was Bill Hymers' quote. My teachers were probably very relieved when I would play hooky!
Two comments: Principals should not be called away from their schools during the school day for meetings “downtown.” And Principals should dress professionally to convey an external sense of authority. And, yes, there are dress shoes that are comfortable to walk in.
Common courtesy and sense are lost.
They can be taught again though. I am trying. I am writing a curriculum called "Social Health" which will be a health class mandated by the state with HEAVY. emphasis on the etiquette and decorum necessary to living in a constitutional republic.
This is wonderful, and wonderfully put. (Why can't more of us in education write so compellingly?) I'll only add that I've also taught in schools where this wasn't necessary (to wit: a small progressivist school, and a very VERY small traditionalist school), but where chaos reigns, redefining the role of principal seems necessary (and these, artful steps to ensuring that).
I'll ask the epistemologically necessary question: are there any schools where something like this is practiced where students aren't learning well?
Unfortunately, there's no way I can know that.
What I do know is that it's highly likely that the number would of schools that do this have lousy outcomes. Why?
At my old site, principals were supposed to be "present" in classrooms. What that amounted to was them VERY occasionally popping into random rooms. There was no rhyme or reason to their attendance. They would, however, leave some random note about what they saw that day.
In other words, their visits weren't meaningful. They weren't collecting daata. They weren't looking to support behavior or enforce schoolwide rules. They weren't looking to see which teachers needed additional support or training.
The principals who visited were, as they so often do, just checking a box. Ticking boxes, not the education of all children, became the goal of a policy that likely originated out of good intent but, as usual was not supported by instruction in clear, actionable steps.
>> "Unfortunately, there's no way I can know that."
Oh, I know — I wasn't expecting you to; I just find myself so convinced by your thesis that I want to shore it up by actively hunting for counter-examples!