They have permitted this to happen through arbitrary “no excuses” zero tolerance rules.

Wiki defines zero tolerance as a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances. In schools, common zero-tolerance policies concern possession or use of illicit drugs or weapons. Students, and sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors, who possess a banned item for any reason are always (if the policy is followed) to be punished.

For starters, in 1994, before the sad event at Columbine, zero tolerance was put into place to curb school gun violence and drugs. If you’re a parent you know the mere mention of guns and schools scares you to death. So getting a resource officer for the school sounds like a good bet—an added measure of protection.

In most places, school resource officers are good people who blend in with the school administration. In the middle and high schools where I worked, the resource officers worked closely with the school counselors. As teachers, we knew they were there if you needed them, but most students saw them, if not as friends, as just another administrator.

School resource officers in many places began pairing with elementary schools with the controversial program DARE which was also supposed to deter students from drugs.

But zero tolerance, while it should do what it was designed for, began being used to punish students, even very young students, for minor offenses. Some of the punishments border on the bizarre and had nothing to do with guns or drugs.

Here’s a few examples From a Huff Post article by John W. Whitehead “Zero Tolerance Schools Discipline Without Wiggle Room.”

• A high school sophomore was suspended for violating the school’s no-cell-phone policy after he took a call from his father, a master sergeant in the U.S military. 
• A 12-year-old New York student was hauled out of school in handcuffs for doodling on her desk with an erasable marker. 
• In Houston, an eighth grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school in memory of her grandmother (the school has a zero tolerance policy against the rosary, which the school insists can be interpreted as a sign of gang involvement). 
• Six-year-old Cub Scout Zachary Christie was sentenced to 45 days in reform school after bringing a camping utensil to school that can serve as a fork, knife or spoon.

Professors William Lyons and Julie Drew wrote a book called Punishing Schools: Fear and Citizenship in American Public Education. They start out with this:

We had witnessed fifty young people being told to relinquish their property for inspection and to stand quietly against a wall. We had watched several physically intimidating men wearing military uniforms and haircuts, combat boots and radios, with visible weapons and huge eager German Shepherds straining on short leashes, search that property for contraband. We stood by while one of these men and his dog searched the bodies of students, who said nothing and did as they were told. No one appeared afraid—except us.

Here are a few others:

• In 2001, a month after 9-11, a fifth grader was suspended after drawing a picture of the World Trade Center attack. The child, who had Asperger’s syndrome, smiled while showing the picture. The school principal claimed the boy had also stuck a paper airplane on one of the towers. He suspended the child due to “disruptive physical conduct or speech” rule. The father argued that instead of suspending the child, the administration could have let the child speak to a school guidance counselor.
• In 2003, school officials strip-searched 13-year-old Savana Redding, after finding some ibuprofen in a school planner Savana lent another student. They searched Savana’s backpack and found nothing. So the school nurse and assistant principal made her undress to her underwear and pull out her bra and panties to see if any of the pain reliever fell out. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court vindicated Savana based on the Fourth Amendment.
• In Minneapolis-St. Paul, a student accidently left a box cutter used at his after school grocery store job in his car. It posed no threat, but a security guard saw it and the school suspended the student for 10 days. Up until that point the student had a flawless record.

I wrote a book a few years back and have a whole chapter on this stuff. Unfortunately, there are many more examples.

The way zero tolerance is used today is to deny children their basic right to be human—to make mistakes. And by not giving students a chance to explain their mistakes, they are treated abysmally.

This attitude, that children should behave perfectly in their schools—that they must never step off the line—permeates into the classroom.

Think about the strictness found in some charter schools where students must be robotic in their responses, where they are treated stricter than soldiers in the military, or prisoners in jail.

The new teacher training by those who never studied child development or behavior is all about control—keeping children in line. In today’s data-driven schools, the new fast-track teachers and so-called leaders care about outward appearances, not a child’s inside distress. They reject studying about behavior and development and about the problems facing children.

But if we were to zoom out and broadly look at schooling today, we would also see a general scorn for children—a meanness that commands but does not deal with a child’s troubling behavior.

There is a difference in dealing with challenging behavior and controlling it. Control means children learn nothing about how to be real human beings with feelings. Their feelings are not valued and they learn nothing about their mistakes. Instead, they learn about tactics for enforcement, because it is the enforcement that matters—not the child.

Certainly, school administrators want to ensure student safety. But all of these actions make me wonder whatever happened to all the “high expectation” talk?

Instead of high expectation, there is fear and loathing. And it leaves students and parents so frightened of public schools that they will run away from them if they can.

As far as the student who was assaulted in the video—did anyone think to ignore her bad behavior until after class was over? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t know if that would have worked.

I will be the first to tell you, that dealing with students with behavioral issues is tough and like most teachers the answers don’t come easily.

In fact, working with troubled students is one of the most difficult challenges in our schools today. But it should never result in violence, and officials must always remember that behind the behavior usually there is a frightened kid who wants acceptance and to be heard.

We need to return to schools that honestly care more about the children, and that won’t happen until real educators, who study and understand children, who learn how to treat them appropriately and with respect, get control of their public schools again.
_____________________________________________________________

Lyons, William and Julie Drew. Punishing Schools: Fear and Citizenship in American Public Education. (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2006), 3-4.

Huchet, Charles G. “Zero Tolerance=Zero Thinking=Zero Sense: A School Policy That Places Our Kids at Risk. The Source. Winter 2001.

ACLU Confronts Criminalization of Children. Civil Liberties: The American Civil Liberties Union National Newsletter. Summer 2009.

Bailey, Nancy. Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2013), 95.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is NancyeBailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

For many, the term “community schools” conjures up the idea of schools as the hub of the town, with experienced principals and credentialed career teachers. We think of these schools as designed for the public good, with strong PTAs, afterschool programs, and health screenings which include a school nurse.

Most important, the community, we assume, owns these schools. They should be public in the truest sense of the word with plenty of electives including the arts and sports. With luck, community schools stay open into the evening with course offerings for adults and students! They are overseen by strong, involved school boards, we think.

Some of us might remember our own public schools as community schools when we were young. Others think their schools needed help. But all of us probably agree that community schools should be schools the community gets behind and is proud of—a source of support for families and the town or city.

The elephant in the room with community schools is…you guessed it…racial diversity. Unless the surrounding neighborhood is multicultural, community schools run the risk of being segregated.

Also, many parents might be scratching their heads. They have not forgotten the closure of what they believed used to be their community public schools. They might wonder if they will be getting their old schools back.

So, aside from the problem with integration, or the lack of it, upon hearing the term community schools, it is easy to get a warm fuzzy feeling that something good is happening in education. Maybe the tide is turning. Perhaps too, our neighborhoods are changing when it comes to ethnicity.

Alas, however, upon examining today’s term “community schools,” one realizes quickly, that they are usually charter schools.

Here is the Ohio definition of community schools.

Community schools, often called charter schools in other states, are public nonprofit, nonsectarian schools that operate independently of any school district but under a contract with an authorized sponsoring entity that is established by statute or approved by the State Board of Education. Community schools are public schools of choice and are state and federally funded.

If they aren’t charters, they are poor traditional public schools relying on some business in the community to keep the school afloat. Chances are it will only be time before they are turned into a charter. Some choice.

The mention of public-private ownership whenever community schools are mentioned, gives it away. Certainly private business has an interest in supporting local public schools. They should donate to them to help them thrive. But public schools should not be so poor that the community must rely on outsiders to keep the school open.

Public-private partnerships implies more than volunteerism. It involves ownership. We know ownership means business will run the schools—even possibly make a profit off them. They will also drive career teachers and reputable principals and superintendents out of the system. They will claim they are too costly.

In some places charter schools have turned into for-profit businesses with stocks trading on Wall Street. How does this make it a community school?

Certainly, there are charters that are run by sincere individuals doing good work. Those aren’t the charter schools I refer to. And if the ECAA passes with wraparound health services that would be a good thing. However, there is uncertainty with that part of the bill.

Also, many public schools used to offer wraparound services. They had school nurses and health screenings. Poor children usually had access to primary health and dental care. Who will monitor whether children get those services in their charter schools? Real public schools should still be able to offer those services.

The main lobbying group for community schools is the Coalition of Community Schools. It is troubling upon studying their website that anyone can start a community school. And they mention “personalized learning” which has become a euphemism for online instruction. Will the new community schools eventually be like the online Rocketship charter schools?

It is also interesting that they talk little about teachers on their website.

A traditional public school is a real community school. It is a school that rejects no one. It has legitimate career teachers and principals.

So hearing all the hype about community schools in the new Every Child Achieves Act is deceptive, because when most of us think of community schools we are dreaming of something different than charter schools. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like bologna.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

Citation Link:

Baron, Kathryn. “Senate Bill Keeps After-School and Community Schools in ESEA.” Education Week. July 17, 2015.

On the issue of K-12 education he leaves me a bit high and dry. Something is missing. I think as parents and educators, we need to not be swept off our feet by Bernie Sanders, but we need to hold his feet to the fire. I think this is important because I am hopeful he is one candidate that might listen.

We should require more answers from him about his education agenda.

You might say, “Well who else is out there who will do any better for education and public schools?” Good question.

Still, while I am no fan of Jeb Bush, I can honestly say I know where he stands on education. This will make it simple for me not to vote or support him. The others, including Sen. Sanders, leave out a lot of issues.

The Pros

These are the positive reasons I like Sen. Sanders. Please let me know if I missed something and I will add it to the list.

• He recognizes many children in this country live in poverty. Poverty has always been an overriding issue in the struggle to have decent public schools. What more will Sen. Sanders advocate concerning poverty and public schools?
• He emphasizes good Pre-K programs. I’d like to hear more about what he means here since this is always one of the goals of politicians. But it should be addressed.
• He supports affordable public higher education for all students who are capable and wish to attend college. He seems to be fighting for the middle class here and transcends the usual “all students must go to college” hype. He focuses instead on the troubling reality many hard-working students face–especially student debt.
• He likes small class sizes! This is written in his educational platform and is one of those issues that makes me jump off my couch and cheer!
• He is against vouchers. He has more recently made some reference against sending vouchers to private schools. Most Democrats are against vouchers.
• He has supported after school programs. This issue is important and I am glad he has been a part of showcasing it in the past.
• He has supported good education facilities for elementary schools. Many schools across the country are in bad condition. It is refreshing that Sen. Sanders has spoken out on this serious and often neglected issue.
• He doesn’t like NCLB. He should discuss more about why he doesn’t like it, and he needs to discuss the problematic Race to the Top.
• He talks about the whole child. Add to this a discussion about having a balanced curriculum in our public schools which is what is needed to address the whole child. I think he has mentioned the importance of art in school.
• He supports the teachers’ unions. This is good; however, unions are also controversial these days. They seem to be on board for selective charters (thinking teachers are still in charge) and Common Core. It also remains to be seen how hard they will fight for saving special education or returning normalcy to the classroom when it comes to high-stakes testing. Although I support teacher unions, I, like many others, am not enthralled with the AFT or the NEA right now.
• He speaks against high-stakes testing. While he might say there is too much testing, so did President Obama in the early days. Still, it is always nice to hear.

The Cons

Here are the murky areas that trouble me about Sen. Sander’s education platform thus far.

• He is selective in his criticism. He knocks corporations and the Koch brothers who have certainly had what I would call a negative imprint on our public schools, especially in North Carolina. But, thus far, I have not heard a peep about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which have a far more formidable influence on education at the present time.
• He has yet to mention Common Core State Standards. I heard a person in an audience ask about Common Core along with some other issues. Sen. Sanders was evasive. Yet, CCSS is one of the hottest topics in education today.
• Senator Sanders talks proudly about being on the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pension. Probably the rewrite of the 800 page ESEA will be approved this week. This bill is generating much concern and is highly supportive of charter schools and the state’s overall draconian influence on schools. Some parents and educators myself included, think they should go back to the drawing board. Here is Dr. Sandra Stotsky warning against it and requesting phone calls to appropriate lawmakers. The education community seems divided on this issue.
• He has not mentioned charter schools. Dems tend to dislike vouchers but cling to the belief charters are the old Albert Shanker idea that has teachers in charge of nice alternative schools. But this country strayed far from that concept years ago. While there may be some good charters, most lack transparency and are posed to dismantle traditional public schools. Teachers are often treated abysmally when it comes to charters. Many teachers have lost their jobs when their schools arbitrarily shut down and converted to charters. And many charters rely on teachers who are lacking suitable qualifications.
• He likes teachers but which ones? I would like Sen. Sanders to get more specific on this issue. Teacher education is being dismantled in this country in favor of the Teach for America types. I want a candidate who will speak out in favor of fully-prepared career teachers, who study the needs of children and not just data, and not fast-track Teach for America.
• Special education? There are signs everyday that special education is in serious trouble of being eliminated in public schools. We have fought too long and too hard for the rights of all students with disabilities. We also need good programming for ELL students and the gifted. I want to hear this issue addressed by Sen. Sanders and the rest.

There may be many reasons to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. In general, he has a fine political agenda on many issues. But so far, Sen. Sanders needs to answer many other questions about K-12 education. I hope this will soon change.

We are listening.

Here is a Face Book page for Bernie Sanders. Let him know how you feel about public schools and education.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is NancyeBailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

In addition, they are still insisting students struggling to learn English must take the regular tests after one year instead of two.

They will not consider the waiver requested by the Regents.

Both requests were aimed at reducing stress on students and yielding more useful results. State officials say that federal rules that require testing students at their chronological age, with narrow exceptions for students with very severe disabilities, set up some disabled students for failure and turn the tests into stressful guessing games. School officials in districts with many immigrant students say one year often is not enough for new arrivals to be ready to take language arts exams written in English.

Certain civil rights groups, as we know, have been behind this draconian testing too, along with, U.S. Assistant Education Secretary Deborah Delisle who is leaving to be the new CEO of the ASCD. The requirements, she says, are “necessary to ensure that teachers and parents of all students, including (English learners) and students with disabilities, have information on their students’ proficiency and progress in reading/language arts and mathematics” and “to ensure that schools are held accountable for the academic achievement of all students.”

The U.S. DOE is on a trajectory to privatize public schools and the only way they can do it to make it look like teachers are failing to teach students with disabilities or students learning a new language. They will continue to sacrifice the mental health of children and jobs of many teachers to do this. In New York, like everywhere else, testing has been tricky business.

What happened to the Individual Educational Plan (IEP)?

We have also been in the process of witnessing the end of special education, and a return to the old days of stigmatizing children. Instead of institutions, students will be segregated into for-profit charter schools with Teach for America, turnaround teachers. Or parents will be pushed out of public school into homeschooling.

It is amazing the lengths high ranking authorities at the U.S. Dept. of Education will continue to go to make public schools, teachers and their students look bad, all while they are breaking up special education and converting public schools into charters.

The IEP meeting is where parents who want their children to take a test, or not, should work it out. No so-called advocacy groups or politicians have the right to paint all students with one broad stroke. The purpose of special education is to individualize!

The U.S. DOE is overstepping its authority. They should have been sued a long time ago. The State of New York needs to protect its children! As does the rest of the country.

Some will say these draconian plots are because those at the U.S. DOE don’t know anything about kids with disabilities, and it is easy to get that takeaway when you watch Education Secretary Arne Duncan bumble about trying to explain why there is no concerted plan for children with dyslexia.

But the assault on special education has been going on since the day the ink dried on PL 94-142. Few politicians wanted to fund it. That we had some good years in the seventies to pull children out of dismal institutions and insist that they could learn and should have rights like every other child was a miracle.

Where is the safety net now? This push to test all students this way heightens the stigma children face—does not remove it. There will be no pleasant futures made based on these test scores for many of these children.

It is pure meanness. I know of no other words to describe it.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

Here are the usual soundbites and what I wish would be said instead.

1. We should respect teachers and pay them more.

Instead:

What we have seen is an erosion of the professional development of teachers, not to mention the demolition of teacher tenure in states like California.

Let’s improve the schools of education and require a teaching degree from an accredited university along with strict state credentials. No more diploma mills and fast-track prep. Our students need real teachers who are fully prepared to teach, and we need to discuss the important meaning of tenure to the teaching profession.

Teach for America will become Teacher Aides for America. Let young people out of college work under the supervision of fully degreed and prepared teachers who have been in the field for at least five years. If they then choose teaching they will receive assistance to return to school to become real teachers.

2. Public schools fail and we need competition—charter schools.

Instead:

We have had charter schools for 23 years and there is no proof they are better than traditional public schools—many have worse results. Let’s put a hold on new charter school development and investigate every single charter school to ensure they are rejecting no children and are making legitimate progress.

We will also penalize those charter company operators who siphon money from the state and fail.

3. We need choice.

Instead:

Any school that accepts funding in the form of a voucher will have to demonstrate beforehand that they provide a better education compared to the traditional public school from where a student originated. There will also be consistent monitoring.

4. Students need to be prepared to compete in the 21st century.

Instead:

We are going to bring more jobs home to America and pay workers fairly (living wage). We will encourage young people to pursue careers they are interested in and provide them with career education and support in high school and beyond.

We will help them find their vocational strengths in high school. In order to do this we will bring back a well-balanced curriculum that includes the arts and which starts from an early age.

We will include good vocational-technical education.

5. Common Core State Standards are great!

Instead:

Common Core State Standards are controversial and were never tested. We need to revisit how they were developed, why they were created, and whether they are as good as many say. We need to weigh the two sides of opinion and explore standards in general and the role the state and federal government have played in creating standards.

We need independent research studies done on the Common Core pronto!

6. There is too much standardized testing.

Instead:

We know many parents are concerned about high-stakes testing because there is too much of it and it is designed to fail students, fire teachers and close schools.

Let’s put a moratorium on testing and let school districts, teachers and parents determine what tests are necessary to help their children succeed…and that includes testing tied to Common Core.

Furthermore, no child should be punished for not taking a test. Parents should have the right to reject any testing they don’t think is appropriate without repercussions.

Every local school board should bring teachers together with parents to discuss the meaning of school accountability. After all, who are public schools supposed to be accountable to?

7. Make four year public colleges free.

Instead:

How do other countries provide public college tuition free? Let us have a task force to examine this refreshing idea. We did this once in California, so why can’t we do it again in this country? And we will also look into giving parents and students who have been paying for college in recent years some kind of rebate. Yes. Education is that important.

8. Students attend dropout factories.

Instead:

How many students are dropping out and how much of this perception is due to bad record keeping in the school districts? Why do students drop out? Let’s ask the students who drop out how we could encourage them to stay in school.

9. We need universal preschool.

Instead:

Universal preschool has been used by politicians to garner support for years. Let’s get down to business and increase developmentally friendly preschools especially for the poor—which include more children who were once in the middle class. Let’s revisit Head Start and see how we can help increase supportive early public childhood education. Education for the poor should include necessary wraparound services, and no child should be denied health care.

10. We will reinvent education.

Instead:

Our public schools have served us well for many years. But the defunding of schools since the early 1980s and the involvement of big business in the corporatization of schooling needs to be investigated. While business has a vested interest in public schooling, and philanthropy is welcome, corporate venture philanthropy should not be allowed. Public schools are great democratic institutions that belong to the people. They should not be turned into businesses.

11. We need new leaders in education.

Instead:

Anyone who is a leader in education, overseeing public schooling, will have to have been a professional teacher for at least 5 years and have earned a degree in the area of their expertise. Gone will be the days of public policy wonks and MBAs who never professionally set foot in a classroom, running our schools.

12. We need to stop throwing money at schools.

Instead:

While we need to audit state and local school districts better and question selective federal grant programs that do not serve all children, we also need better transparency of both charter and private schools. But the reality is that public schools have been defunded for many years. And tax dollars are being thrown at untested programs that do not benefit all children.

13. We need to put the best teachers on the Internet.

Instead:

While technology can supplement the classroom and be a good resource for teachers and students, it is not a proven mechanism to replace public schools and public school teachers. We still need good public schools where children get to socialize and learn to be tolerant of one another. And real teachers still matter greatly.

_________________________________________________________________

I’m sure you can think of other comments about education that you would like to hear expanded or where you disagree. Feel free to comment on any of the above.  I would also like a discussion about the following areas which seem ignored:

14. Special education,
15. The loss of the arts,
16. School facility overcrowding and danger.

_________________________________________________________________

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1

Now, if you Google Little House in the Big Woods you will find a gazillion ways to address the Common Core. The books are considered a must read, and it appears that if you aren’t exposed to reading them, early on, you will not go far in life. There are even picture books to pave the way for the chapter books to make sure teachers and their students don’t flub up and miss out.

Those books were not made to appear like I would be a failure if I didn’t read them when I was young. No one warned me that I wouldn’t be able to get into Harvard if I didn’t read them. I, quite frankly, never heard of Harvard or any other college in third grade.

When I first read Little House in the Big Woods, I wasn’t made to learn about Laura Ingalls Wilder the author, or given a whole long list of vocabulary words out of the book to define. I didn’t have to locate descriptive words—no one graded me down if I didn’t know what quinine meant.

I didn’t have to identify alliteration and the syllables in the words. I didn’t need to prove I could identify singular and plural nouns or the parts of speech. I wasn’t made to go back and describe the cliffhangers, although I probably did tell my little friends about some of them. I didn’t even have to write about the story using graphic organizers.

I only remember yearning for time after school and on the weekend to be able to immerse myself in the story. And, much to my delight, when I finished Little House in the Big Woods, I discovered On the Banks of Plum Creek!

I am not saying that it isn’t nice to learn additional things surrounding a novel. I think older students might benefit from this, and younger children might enjoy learning facts about a story. I read Mary Poppins to my daughter after she saw the movie, and we both got a kick out of learning the meaning of a perambulator. Children are usually naturally curious.

But it is the whole crisis idea behind Common Core…the benchmarks and scaffolding…the outrageously wordy micromanagement, applied to teaching, that we should all question. It is the marketing of programs that promise to fill every child with all the knowledge, we are told, children will ever need, so they won’t disgrace their country and be economic losers in the long run.

This message–if children are not presented the Laura Ingalls Wilder books this way–they will surely fail, is a wrong message. It is harmful to children and discourages them from the pure, great joy of reading.

I read these books in the 1950s. And children have learned to read in public schools for years since then. There was never any real crisis. Certainly, there will be children who have difficulty learning to read, and they will need extra assistance. But from what I’ve seen, and as a teacher who once worked with middle and high school students with reading difficulties, Common Core isn’t it.

A while back I returned to the Laura Ingalls Wilder’s series and finished reading the books about when she became an adult. I was just as excited about reading them, at this time, as I was when I was a child.

That is the beauty of the joy of learning. It should never leave you. But I don’t think I would have ever cared to return to those books if I’d had to learn about them originally with Common Core strategies. It would have seemed like too much of a chore.

Nancy Bailey is an education activist and a former special education teacher.  Her book is titled Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.  Her blog is http://nancyebailey.com. Catch up with her on twitter @NancyEBailley1