Merged Teacher leads kindergarten class to vote boy with Asperger's out of class

[kerikiwi]

Are students supposed to be with classes or without?

This question is, itself, confusing.
Can you rephrase it?

 

[Dancing David]

To some extent it does. Some students who, bluntly, just aren't that bright or studious, will be forced into doing Education because all of the things they would rather do have already been taken by the smarter and/or harder working students. They will pass Education because the bar is set low, and the bar is set low because otherwise too many Education-caliber students would fail.

Of course this also means that anyone relatively bright and dedicated (by undergrad standards) who wants to get into teaching will have no difficulty doing so.



How bright and competent are they compared to the average graduate of science, law, medicine or engineering?



While the classroom management skills you are talking about are undoubtedly both valuable and hard-won they aren't rocket science either.

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to say that teachers are bad people, or dumb, or that they don't do a job which is absolutely necessary, or anything like that. Just that as a matter of objective fact in our current society the existing systems tend to channel less talented tertiary students into teaching careers.

I agree with everything you said, however the people who get really high grades on admission tests may not have the set of skills for actually teaching, unfortunately it is not hugely researched. You have to have a very high tolerance and good boundaries to teach at all grade levels. the controlling types scrub out fairly fast. I think the frustration level is why most people go into other professions. It is very hard to ignore the stupid stuff and stay focused as a teacher. The student who is the most annoying is usually the one that needs the most help. Good instructions seems to spend the minimum of time in lecturing and the maximum time involved in teaching the skills needed in the class. So say for math, there will be about 5-10 mins. of partcipatory teaching, taking notes and filling in the blanks. And then the rest of the period helping the student do most of the homework before they leave class, if possible.

Most of the people who I work with (I am just an instructional tecnologie steacher's aide) have chosen to be teachers, many are getting advanced degrees to get higher pay or (yuck) be administrators.

 

[Aitch]

I agree with everything you said, however the people who get really high grades on admission tests may not have the set of skills for actually teaching, unfortunately it is not hugely researched.

I think that this is standard for most fields. When I did my degree (oh, so many years ago) one of the modules, O&M, included some time on aptitude tests. According to the guy running that module, according to the latest research (this is 30 years ago, mind) people fell into three main classes:

1. Those whose aptitudes were accurately displayed by the tests.
2. Those who could do the job, but were bad at tests.
3. Those who couldn't do the job, but were good at aptitude tests.

He reckoned that, even with the best designed test, you would always get a small proportion of the last two groups with any test.

Most of the people who I work with (I am just an instructional tecnologie steacher's aide) have chosen to be teachers, many are getting advanced degrees to get higher pay or (yuck) be administrators.

And who can blame them? Why bust a gut trying to teach and keep order when you know you can get more money for sitting in an office shuffling paper?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

so.. now I'm confused.

Are students supposed to be with classes or without? Because I can't follow the drift of skeptigirl's post

All I am saying Toko, is there are possible scenarios here where the teacher's actions were appropriate and are being misconstrued by the description we are reading. There are possible scenarios where the teacher was not so competent. Most people seem to be assuming there are no possible scenarios where the teacher's actions were OK.

 

[slingblade]

I'm not sure there is a time when using shame and leading students in a round of peer pressure is okay.

According to:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23544.aspx

Portillo readily admits that's what happened but insists she was simply trying to show the youngster how irritating his behaviour was to others and give his classmates the option to say whether he should be allowed back into class that day.

I realize I'm only reading what a newspaper article says, but that's all I have. And here I have what's purported to be the teacher's admission: yes, she had the class take turns speaking about Alex, and then she had them vote on whether he could come back that day.

So, seeing as how she admits to organizing the voting, I have to ask: was she daft?

These children are classmates. An adult, a boss, a leader, does not set members of a cooperative group of any age at one another in this manner...unless, of course, the aim is to kill the group. You don't teach people, encourage people, to undermine each other! You teach them to support, to exemplify, to help. Not to outcast. Not to throw a friend away.

And you don't ask five-year-olds to vote on anything more important than chocolate-chip or oatmeal, because they're just sheep at that age. They do what the crowd does--encouraging that tendency is not how you teach critical thinking!

I've given it much thought, and I cannot see a scenario where the teacher's actions would be ok.

 

[Darat]

Good points Slingblade.

From what's been reported about this instance I think the teacher had at the centre of what she was doing a good idea i.e. to try and help someone understand how their actions can affect others. However her execution was lousy and I think would cause more problems rather than solving anything.

 

[Dancing David]

I think that this is standard for most fields. When I did my degree (oh, so many years ago) one of the modules, O&M, included some time on aptitude tests. According to the guy running that module, according to the latest research (this is 30 years ago, mind) people fell into three main classes:

1. Those whose aptitudes were accurately displayed by the tests.
2. Those who could do the job, but were bad at tests.
3. Those who couldn't do the job, but were good at aptitude tests.

He reckoned that, even with the best designed test, you would always get a small proportion of the last two groups with any test.

And functional skills analysis is rarely researched or tested for.

And who can blame them? Why bust a gut trying to teach and keep order when you know you can get more money for sitting in an office shuffling paper?

Well for one things, some crazy types, like myself get a charge from teaching and learning.

In the US you get two months off and a lot of holidays.

You only teach five to six hours a day.

The pay is better than many healping professions like social work (for a bachelors degree) and somewhat competitive for a Masters.

Administration is not sitting in an office unless you are the top dog in schools, otherwise it is discipline and other exciting stuff.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus. My position is these people are in no position to judge this teacher. Yet they feel the need to gather petition signatures to have her fired. They don't know dick about the real facts yet they judge. That is evidence by their personal words and deeds.

But the same applies to any news story. We don't have the real facts, all the facts. We never do.

Given that you don't know dick about the real facts about other news stories, will you refrain from commenting on them in the future?

Did you miss this comment I made: "Having an opinion qualified by, "if this is what happened" is fine"? I even bolded it. I don't read that qualification in the majority of the opinions expressed in this thread. That is what I have commented on.

No, you did not. You complained that people were judging the teacher even though we didn't have the "full story". Yet, you judge the teacher yourself.

Not relevant. You don't have the full story here, none of us do.

It is highly relevant. None of us ever have the "full story" on any news story. So, if you don't want people to pass judgment - or even voice their opinion, based on the available information - how can we ever comment on any such story?

You are effectively censoring us all.

I can see a number of plausible ways it might have been handled given the facts we have to go by. I find the teacher's explanation as we read it, to be consistent with handling this properly.

How can you allow yourself to voice your opinion based on the incomplete facts we have, when you won't allow others to do the exact same? That is totally inconsistent.

In other words, I need more information. From what I read the scenario is not clear enough to say exactly what occurred. Having child A tell child B how child B's behavior affected child A is a well known means of facilitating communication.

Instead of saying to someone, "you did this", or, "you are that", you have the person change to an "I" message, "When you do X, I feel Y"

Using I messages

Let me ask a general question, then: Do you see any problems with a teacher letting the other pupils voting someone out of the class?

 

[Dave Rogers]

From what's been reported about this instance I think the teacher had at the centre of what she was doing a good idea i.e. to try and help someone understand how their actions can affect others. However her execution was lousy and I think would cause more problems rather than solving anything.

I tend to agree, in that looking at this from the perspective of a teacher teaching a child without Asperger's one can see that the intentions were good. However, when you add Asperger's into the mix, things start looking bizarre. That's what leads me to believe that she didn't have the expertise to be able to teach a child with an ASD. Nobody who knows the first thing about autism would try to use peer pressure that way. And that isn't mere hyperbole in this case; the first thing to know about autism is that it is a social disorder, affecting people's interactions with other people. She might as well have tried to teach a blind child by showing him pictures.

Now we know that the diagnosis hadn't been delivered at the time, but I can't believe that there wasn't some very concrete suspicion of the child's condition. Someone in the school knew that this child very likely had Aspergers, and that someone allowed him to stay in a mainstream class with a teacher who didn't know the basics about teaching, or even managing the behaviour of, someone with Aspergers; and when she ran into problems, they let her carry on dealing with them without the expertise or the support to do it properly. Whoever that person was, they should be the one doing some explaining right now.

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

All I am saying Toko, is there are possible scenarios here where the teacher's actions were appropriate and are being misconstrued by the description we are reading. There are possible scenarios where the teacher was not so competent. Most people seem to be assuming there are no possible scenarios where the teacher's actions were OK.

In a kindergarten or first grade class?

I can understand how someone could get there but really?

The diagnosis is unconfirmed and I wonder what the result of the school evaluation is.

One of the grade schools I work in has a set of very disruptive students and some other high flyers. (In kindergarten.)

This is not good methodology from a behavioral stand point.

While an understandable reaction on the teacher’s part, if true, it is not the best choice.

I question more why administration sent the kid back to class and what the school evaluation showed. Private diagnosis as reported by a parent is not what the school evaluation would require. Varies from state to state.

 

[Dancing David]

The news story is one of many for the school distrcit and rather low on the list :
http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=St.+Lucie+County+School+District&c=

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For those of you arguing about the actions of the teacher with me, I can't really discuss it because I can only go by a news report I find unreliable. Even Slingblade's link claiming to give the teacher's side does not mean that is the whole story.

Have any of you been in a class with a large percentage of new students have come from homes with incompetent parents? Do we have a clue what the mix of kids in this school is? Do we have a clue what the other teachers do or don't do? Do we know just how bad this kid's behavior was or what the teacher had already tried?

Having kids give the "I" message is appropriate, I provided a link to the reason and how it is used. I can't comment on the voting bit, nor the length of time the child was removed from the class. Generally, for a 5 yr old, being removed for the entire period seems long but then we don't know what had been tried already or just how disturbed the behavior was.

I was the weekend parent in a group home for disturbed kids in one of my past lives. We had to hold kids down to calm them and physically put them into the timeout room on occasion, and if you just heard that part you might think it was never appropriate for these little kids. But it was. Their behavior was extreme. They had come from really terrible environments to get that way, but that is the way they were.

One of our six year olds broke into and completely destroyed a house down the street one day on his way back from the park. He tore up the house, knocked over the fish tank, turned on all the burners, all the faucets and plugged the sinks. Why? Because he had gone on an interview with a family that was a prospective adoption for him and he freaked out sensing he might have to change to yet another home. He had never been in the neighbor's house he broke into. He just picked it at random.

So, from what we do know, I would say the "I" messages were appropriate and were not an improper use of peer pressure even for a 5 yr old. Usually a much shorter time out would be called for at that age. We need more information about the things I noted above to say. Having the kids vote, again, I need more information about how it was handled. That the boy said the things to his Mom about how it was handled does not mean anything was done wrongly. We don't know how realistic this parent is and we do know kids at 5 yrs cannot describe something like this reliably.

The fact the Mom thinks this rates a lawsuit does not give me much confidence she is addressing this reasonably. She has mentioned no concerns the child has problems other than to say she expects the school to solve them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the same applies to any news story. We don't have the real facts, all the facts. We never do.

And your point is?

Given that you don't know dick about the real facts about other news stories, will you refrain from commenting on them in the future?

I fail to see how this is relevant to my comments.

No, you did not. You complained that people were judging the teacher even though we didn't have the "full story". Yet, you judge the teacher yourself.

Apparently you have misread my comments.

It is highly relevant. None of us ever have the "full story" on any news story. So, if you don't want people to pass judgment - or even voice their opinion, based on the available information - how can we ever comment on any such story?

You are effectively censoring us all.

Again, you have seem to be completely ignoring my comment even after I bolded the relevant line in the original post and recopied it for you again after that.

How can you allow yourself to voice your opinion based on the incomplete facts we have, when you won't allow others to do the exact same? That is totally inconsistent.

This is completely false.

Let me ask a general question, then: Do you see any problems with a teacher letting the other pupils voting someone out of the class?

Not as an absolute.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tell me Claus, what is it about the statement, "Having an opinion qualified by, "if this is what happened" is fine", do you not understand?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Democracy at work. So proud!

 

[slingblade]

I'm afraid that I just can't agree that leading children in active peer pressure to exclude a member of the group is a good thing. Especially when it's the kind of group that one is usually required to be in, "voted out" or not. How do you come back, later, knowing they wanted you gone, but knowing you have to be there?

Okay, so no one knew then that the kid might have a real problem with social behaviors and control. But I'd think it at least obvious that behavior is an issue for this child, regardless of reason or label or diagnosis. What if he hadn't had Asperger's, but was just a brat? Excluding him from class by a majority vote is just tyranny of the majority, hiding behind "Well, now he's learned his lesson." No he hasn't. All he has learned is that the majority can kick him out. Yes, it does show him his actions have consequences. It'd be better to show him his actions also have remedies or alternatives.

She could have voted for other things. She could have taken suggestions, not directed right at Alex, but helping the students frame them neutrally, on what to do when we feel like acting this way, or how to handle it when a classmate acts out...they could have made a list. They could have voted on good ways to curb one's own behavior, and good ways to mentor each other. They could have learned a lesson in inclusion, instead of exclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi SkeptiGirl, I am not disagreeing with you, my disagreement is with the method. Not good for kindergarten and first grade, again I think that admin failed (the kids probably should have been sent home) and the mom is not a good source.

For those of you arguing about the actions of the teacher with me, I can't really discuss it because I can only go by a news report I find unreliable. Even Slingblade's link claiming to give the teacher's side does not mean that is the whole story.

Have any of you been in a class with a large percentage of new students have come from homes with incompetent parents?

Yes, but I would not say incompetent, low income SES usually means that one or both parents are working most of the time and that they kids are raised in 'in home day care' or older sibs and cousins. They don't get the preschool experience. Also with one or no car you often are waking in the middle of your sleep period to get transferred some where.

So in my two schools about 25% of the kids don't have the social skills for kindergarten and about 40% don't have the academics, IE letter recognition and counting skills. And yes there are some incompetent parents. More often just people working really hard who don't have the time at home they would like.

Do we have a clue what the mix of kids in this school is?

No. But we can guess. Both my schools have a high proportion of 'at risk kids'.

Do we have a clue what the other teachers do or don't do?

No but we can talk about best practice, the social modeling of shame is not effective. I use a modified time out called 'reset' (the good part of the nurtured heart), I will sit kids by the door for an extended time out as well. Social shaming is not a good response. If a kid is truly disruptive then they can go to the office.

Do we know just how bad this kid's behavior was or what the teacher had already tried?

Again I blame the admin.

Believe me, I am very suspicious of the mom getting the private diagnosis without seeing the school evaluation. And believe me, I do know the issue of diagnosis shopping. I am very aware of one student who has flaming bipolar disorder and is very disruptive in class (On a bad day they are in the office all day and get sent home) but one of the parents is resistant to any intervention.

So the kid is not labeled ED, because the parent refuses and they qualify under a 504 plan (as opposed to the traditional IEP plan) under OHI (other Health Impairment) which is of course the diagnosis that the mom shopped for 'Asperger's". The poor kid is flaming bipolar, but parent have an absolute determination of intervention.

And that is just one kid at one school.

So yeah, no sympathy for the mom.

The kid should have already has a de-escalation plan and stayed in the office.

Having kids give the "I" message is appropriate,

Not in kindergarten and first grade. Straight up time out and removal is best. Shame is not a good motivator, it leads to more disruption in most cases.

I provided a link to the reason and how it is used. I can't comment on the voting bit, nor the length of time the child was removed from the class. Generally, for a 5 yr old, being removed for the entire period seems long but then we don't know what had been tried already or just how disturbed the behavior was.

If they had to be removed by the SRO a second time they probably should have been suspended for the rest of the day.

I was the weekend parent in a group home for disturbed kids in one of my past lives. We had to hold kids down to calm them and physically put them into the timeout room on occasion, and if you just heard that part you might think it was never appropriate for these little kids.

It really depends, I have had to do it as well.

But it was. Their behavior was extreme. They had come from really terrible environments to get that way, but that is the way they were.

One of our six year olds broke into and completely destroyed a house down the street one day on his way back from the park. He tore up the house, knocked over the fish tank, turned on all the burners, all the faucets and plugged the sinks. Why? Because he had gone on an interview with a family that was a prospective adoption for him and he freaked out sensing he might have to change to yet another home. He had never been in the neighbor's house he broke into. He just picked it at random.

Wow that is a rather extreme response, maybe a budding conduct disorder as well.

So, from what we do know, I would say the "I" messages were appropriate and were not an improper use of peer pressure even for a 5 yr old. Usually a much shorter time out would be called for at that age. We need more information about the things I noted above to say. Having the kids vote, again, I need more information about how it was handled. That the boy said the things to his Mom about how it was handled does not mean anything was done wrongly. We don't know how realistic this parent is and we do know kids at 5 yrs cannot describe something like this reliably.

Sorry from a behavioral stand point it seems an inappropriate response given the age and maturity of a five year old. Sending them back to the office, time out for the teacher, aide intervention in a quiet room. I think that admin dropped the ball, the kid has something other than AS and the parent is trying to make money.

The fact the Mom thinks this rates a lawsuit does not give me much confidence she is addressing this reasonably. She has mentioned no concerns the child has problems other than to say she expects the school to solve them.

I disagree with the method the teacher used, and the admin bailed.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

They'll be hiding behind trees with muskets next.

I first read "muskrats" and I'm thinking...WTF? those critters are vicious!

 

[luchog]

I'm not sure there is a time when using shame and leading students in a round of peer pressure is okay.

Exactly my point, much more eloquently stated.

The very last thing any teacher should be doing is encouraging peer pressure and groupthink. Especially among children that age.

It doesn't matter if the situation was as bad as the mother claimed it was. The teacher admitted to setting up this little round of ostracism; and still doesn't think she did anything wrong. Maybe she could get a job programming reality television show; but she sure shouldn't be teaching.

 

[luchog]

Have any of you been in a class with a large percentage of new students have come from homes with incompetent parents? Do we have a clue what the mix of kids in this school is? Do we have a clue what the other teachers do or don't do? Do we know just how bad this kid's behavior was or what the teacher had already tried?

Doesn't matter. Encouraging ostracism is never an appropriate way to deal with a problem. If the child was disruptive, and the teacher couldn't keep him focussed, then she should have simply removed him from the classroom and referred the problem to more competent school officials and the child's parents. If a child is acting out, there's a reason for it that needs to be addressed. Having the class gang up on the kid is so incredibly counterproductive I can't believe anyone would defend this.

This was a bloody classroom, not a group therapy session. This was little more than encouraging mob mentality and ostracizing anyone who didn't fit their narrow little moulds. And these are 5 year olds. They are certainly not going to be anywhere near mentally mature enough to understand the subtlet psychological interplays here. At that age they're still far too self-absorbed and self-focussed. All they're going to see is that they are being encouraged by their teacher to lash out at someone they don't like.