Kathryn Roe has been an educator for 39 years. She began teaching in a juvenile corrections facility (no, she was not an inmate!). She has taught in public and private schools, special education and regular education, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. She moved from the classroom into administration where she was a principal and a curriculum director. She taught pre-service teachers at the university level for the past 13 years.
Classroom management is her passion!
International Women’s Day was March 8. Contrary to what some commercials seem to
say, it is not a day to wear pink ruffles and feel nurturing. It was started in 1909 as a celebration of
women’s rights, and a way to advocate for more rights. The rights women agitated for at that time
included being paid equal to men and the right to vote.
By 1900, women made up 75% of teachers. High schools were not as common as grades 1-8. Many schools had turned to female teachers in an effort to save money. At that time, women could be paid a fraction of what a man was paid, and they could be expected to clean the school as well.
In many areas, a woman could receive a teaching permit by passing a series of tests. In addition, she had to have people attest to her “deportment”, her behavior in the community. She was expected to dress modestly, avoid spending time with men especially if there was no chaperone, attend church, and remain single. She could be fired at the first hint of “immorality”.
I was not born in 1900 even though many of my students
seemed to think I was a contemporary of Moses.
I have, however lived through some significant changes in education with
regards to women’s rights. In honor of
International Women’s Day I would like to outline some of the changes I’ve seen
during my lifetime. In addition, I would
like to remind readers that none of these changes came from above. They were won by teachers fighting for those
rights through their unions and, in some cases, through lawsuits.
When I was in high school, girls were required to wear dresses to school. We can thank Mary Ann Tinker , her brother, and her parents for filing a lawsuit against the Des Moines Board of Education for changes to the dress code. The Supreme Court’s ruling was the “students do no leave their Constitutional rights at the school house gate”.
This ruling affected many areas of schooling. For example, I was not allowed to take a
drafting class in high school because drafting was for boys only, and,
according to the teacher, “Your short skirts would distract the boys.” Girls were not allowed to take shop classes
and boys did not take home economics classes.
In the latter, we girls were taught to sew, cook, clean, and care for
children. Shop and drafting classes were
expected to teach boys skills they could use to get a job right out of high
In Illinois, I was not allowed to do certain jobs or play sports because of what was called “protective legislation”. That is, the state had passed laws that were supposedly designed to protect a woman’s smaller size and reproductive abilities. In the grocery store where I worked, I was not allowed to stock shelves, a higher paying job than working the cash register, because it would have required lifting more than 25 pounds, the limit placed on women. Playing sports would damage our ability to have babies, or so the lawmakers said. We could watch Iowa girls playing basketball and softball on TV, but Illinois would not allow it.
It was not until I was out of high school, in 1972, that
Title 9 was passed. Among other things,
Title 9 said that girls had to have equal opportunities for sports. Girls did not have to have the exact same
sports available to them, but they needed to have something so that there was
balance. For example, boys played
football while girls played volleyball.
Schools were supposed to provide equal amounts of money to
each sport. Some schools got around this
requirement by using booster clubs to pay for “additional” expenses.
It was not until 1974 that female teachers won the right to be visibly pregnant in the classroom. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, most school districts required women to stop teaching before the 4th month of pregnancy and to remain on leave until the child was a specified age. Usually women were not guaranteed to be reinstated in the classroom. Instead, they were supposedly given “given priority in reassignment to a position for which she is qualified”. In other words, before the Supreme Court ruled on this, a woman had to quit teaching if she became pregnant and she couldn’t count on getting her job back again even with the required doctor’s certificate that she was healthy enough to work.
When I applied for my first job in 1978, I had several
The first came during my first interview. I met with the superintendent of
schools. There was no committee or model
lesson to teach. It was just the two of
us with him asking questions and me nervously answering. I needed this job to support my husband and
me! I was stunned when he asked me what
kind of birth control I used. I must
have looked at him strangely because he explained that he didn’t want to hire
someone who would be going on maternity leave right away.
Now, that question is considered illegal. And he would not have asked it if I were not
married. Why? Because an unmarried teacher was not allowed
to be pregnant at all.
The latter situation was covered under what were called “morality
clauses” in teaching contracts. In
these, signing the contract showed the teacher’s agreement to not do anything
that was considered immoral by public standards of the time. Immoral behavior could mean becoming a single
mother, living with a man she was not married to, drinking or becoming drunk in
public, or even public displays of affection.
It could mean wearing one’s skirts “too short”, or clothing that was too
tight. It could mean being gay, being
arrested, taking part in political demonstrations, having an extramarital
affair, or talking back to the principal.
In short, immorality could mean anything the school board said it meant.
Many teachers learned to live outside the school district, and to be very careful when in public. Nonetheless, I received a reprimand from the Board during my first year as a principal in the 90s. I was painting my office and needed some supply or other. I ran out to WalMart wearing my paint-covered, grubby clothes. This was not, the Board said, the way a principal behaved.
When researching for this blog post, I was surprised but not shocked to find that in many states even today teachers may be dismissed for not conforming to the community’s “morals”.
Dress codes continued to be strict for at least another decade after that embarrassing first interview. Female teachers had to wear skirts or dresses, which meant wearing nylons and “appropriate” footwear. Some places were so strict that I learned to take out three of my five earrings as having multiple ear piercings could be construed as too racy. There was no getting away with other piercings, or visible tattoos. And one could not wear denim except on very special occasions. When I moved to a district that allowed women to wear “dress slacks”, I felt like I’d been given a marvelous gift!
After I got divorced, I could not get insurance for my son
through my work. The policy was set up
for singles or for families, and a mother and son were not considered a
family. Birth control was not paid for
through my prescription drug coverage until we entered the 21st
We still have not achieved equal pay for teachers from PK to 12. The gap is closing and is much narrower than when I first began teaching. Back then we were told that elementary children are easy to work with and that to teach high school one needs more education. Even then that argument didn’t hold much water. To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t had elementary teachers who got their teaching license after attending a two year school – the equivalent of an AA. When I first became a principal, I had a couple of elementary teachers who had such degrees, but they were ready to retire. Yes, high school teachers take more in-depth classes in a single subject, but elementary teachers take more classes in more subjects and more in-depth classes in pedagogy. I think anyone would be hard pressed to try to argue one was a more difficult job than the other.
Unions have helped
a lot to achieve parity between the grade levels!
There is still a lot of difference between the pay principals at each level receive. Women are still under-represented in administration, and because individual principals negotiate their contracts individually, they can still be offered less than a male counterpart. In one district I was told that the brand new elementary principal would be receiving half again as much money as I was making even though I was working with a higher grade level and I had four years of experience. I was told flat out that the difference was that I was a single woman and he had a family to support. I don’t think anyone would be that blatant to say it so blatantly now. At least I hope not.
Things have changed a lot for women since 1900, and I’ve only been around to see a fraction of those changes. I haven’t even touched on things like women’s suffrage, the laws that finally allowed women to own property in their own right, being allowed to have a credit card in our name, or being allowed to prepare for any career we want. I haven’t mentioned the college professors who brushed women aside saying we were in college only to get our MRS (to get married). I haven’t mentioned the constant struggle women felt when it seemed everything in the world was against us. I’ve only brushed the surface with my little trip through educational changes. I probably forgot a lot more of them!
I didn’t describe
how difficult the struggles were to achieve those changes. Just think about it: It took the better part of a century to do
this, and it has taken the last 50 years to make most of the changes I’ve described. It would be very easy to lose the gains we’ve
made. Think of that when you listen to
the news or when your local district negotiates its next contract or when your
state contemplates making changes to education law.
Winter weather has certainly disrupted schools here in the Midwest. Our local school district has had 8 snow days so far and a friend whose school is a bit farther north has missed 12 days! Teachers know this means more than simply missing almost two or almost three weeks of classes. Missing school for any reason means that students of any age get out of step with our best laid classroom management plans.
Even during a school year where there are no weather
cancellations, students can get out of step.
Or a teacher can discover that something that sounded like such a good
idea at the beginning of the school year just isn’t working the way s/he
thought it would, or, worse, s/he realizes that she hasn’t followed that plan
What can a teacher do?
Is it ever okay to change the plan in the middle of the year?
The short answer is yes, although it is a bit more
complicated than that.
The first thing to do is to determine if the problem is really
the classroom management plan or if it is the number of days we’ve missed.
Any time students are out of school can lead to students
forgetting or getting out of practice with classroom procedures, routines, or
expectations. In fact, at the beginning
of a school year, I recommend that teachers begin by going over expected
procedures daily for the first week, then each Monday for a few weeks. After that, it is a good idea to review after
each school vacation, or after school cancelations.
I can almost hear some readers saying, “Well, they should
remember that!” Maybe they should, but
their brains are not as mature as the teacher’s adult brain is. Remember, on average, our brains do not fully
mature until age 26, so we cannot expect students to have the judgment that
older adults have even if they look all grown up,
If you decide that the problem is not the amount of time
that the students have been away from the classroom, then it is time to decide
if the issue is consistency.
Educators know consistency is key to so much of what we do
in the classroom! It is very easy for a
teacher to be inconsistent with a procedure!
It doesn’t make us bad people or poor teachers. It just means we are human.
If you’ve decided the procedure hasn’t had a fair chance to
succeed because of inconsistency, the next step is to decide if you are
inconsistent because you are just human, or if the problem is really that it
doesn’t fit the class or you.
If the problem is any reason other than really needing a new
procedure, it is time to do the following:
Point out that X procedure hasn’t been being
Apologize if you have not been consistent
Blame the number of days out of school if that
is the problem
Review the procedure, step-by-step
Have the class practice the procedure
If students practice it well, use praise and encouragement
to reinforce it
If students do not do the procedure as planned,
have them practice it again.
If the problem is that the procedure doesn’t fit your style,
is too complicated, or just doesn’t work for any reason other than the above,
then it is time to come up with a new procedure.
It would be a good idea to ask the class, especially if they
are older than kindergarten through second grade, for their input into planning
the new procedure. You can, of course,
steer the class conversation to doing it in a particular way, but asking for
input can mean that students have a greater buy-in for the procedure.
The bottom line here is that, yes, you can change how you do
things in the classroom at any time during the year. You can pick back up procedures that have
fallen by the wayside or you can create entirely new ways of doing things. The main thing is to make sure you follow the
three steps to teaching anything new:
teach, practice, and reinforce.
I am taking a little break from writing about good rules and
poor rules to address a concern I’ve heard frequently over the past several months. What I’ve heard over and over again is people
saying that the solution for chaotic schools is to get rid of those students who
are disruptive so teachers can work with the students “who want to learn.” These comments have come from those in education,
and those outside of education.
I want to start by saying that I can hear the frustration in
the voices of those who express these ideas.
The teachers who say it are stressed and often bewildered by what is happening. People outside of education are often saying this
because it angers them that their loved ones have such a poor work environment,
or are expressing nostalgia for the “good old days” when allegedly students behaved
No matter what age one lived in, there have always been disruptive
students in the schools. Yes, we did deal
with those students differently in the past.
They were often urged to drop out of school, even as young as in elementary
school. Their absence did make schools more
peaceful, but at what cost?
In my grandparents, or even my parents time, it was possible
for a person to be functionally illiterate and to still make a decent living for
themselves and for their families. There
were factory jobs or manual labor jobs where one did not need to read, write, or
do math at all, or not at a very high level.
That has changed dramatically in the second half of the 20th century
and even more so in the first decade of the 21st.
Using figures from a PBS article describing an episode of Frontline called Dropout Nation from 2012, we
can see that even six years ago, the cost of dropping out of school is expensive,
not just to the drop out but to society as well.
The average dropout can expect to earn an annual
income of $20,241. . . That’s a full $10,386 less than the typical high school graduate,
and $36,424 less than someone with a bachelor’s degree.
While the national unemployment rate stood at 8.1 percent in August [of 2012], joblessness among
those without a high school degree measured 12 percent. Among college graduates,
it was 4.1 percent.
According to the Department of Education.
Dropouts experienced a poverty rate of 30.8 percent, while those with at least a
bachelor’s degree had a poverty rate of 13.5 percent.
Among dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24, incarceration
rates were a whopping 63 times higher than among college graduates, according to
a study by researchers at Northeastern University
When compared to the typical high school graduate
— a dropout will end up costing taxpayers an average of $292,000 over a lifetime
due to the price tag associated with incarceration and other factors such as how
much less they pay in taxes. (Breslow, 2012)
These are dismal
figures. Worse, additional research
shows that this “by the numbers” snapshot is getting darker, not better.
further, each state has set their own age where a student may drop out of
Age for drop out varies.
This figure is in the individual states’ hands. Most have set the legal age at 16. However, fifteen states and the District of
Columbia set the legal drop out age at 18.
Nine have set it at 17. As of
2011, six states, including Iowa were debating raising the minimum dropout age
to 18. In other words, 38 states plus
the District of Columbia have or are considering raising the age when a student
can legally leave school. (K12 Academics, 2011)
The National Education Association, the nation’s largest
teachers’ union, advocates for raising the legal dropout age to 21. Why?
The NEA cites much of the above information and adds that a study done
at MIT shows that more than a quarter of the students considering dropping out
of school stay in because of compulsory attendance laws. (National Education Association, 2012)
So we see that there is a high cost to the student and to
society when young people drop out of school.
But that leads us to the next strand of this issue: what is the connection between using
in-school suspension, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions and dropping
First we have to look at suspension and expulsion, why
schools do and don’t use it.
In the aftermath of mass school shootings in the 1990s, new
policies were put in place at the federal, state, and local levels regarding
students bring guns or other weapons to school, and how we handled violent
students. These policies came to be
called “zero tolerance” policies because any student who brought weapons to
school or who were too violent were expected to be taken out of the school – we
were to have no or zero tolerance for such behavior.
I was a school principal when “zero tolerance” became the
buzzword in conversations about school discipline. In districts all around mine and across the
country, students were being suspended for “offenses” as small as bring a knife
in their lunch box to cut up an apple, making their fingers into “guns” and
having imaginary gun battles, and bringing their grandfather’s pocket knife to
show and tell. I believed that such a
strict interpretation of the zero tolerance policies was absurd and I refused
to suspend the kindergartener who brought that pocket knife to school, although
I did keep it in my desk until his parents could come get it. I was much more concerned with the intent
behind the behavior than actually bringing the item to school or playing “cops
and robbers”. At that time, I often
declared that if someone wanted to take me to court over it, I figured no judge
would condemn me. I still stand by that
Yet many did not and school suspensions and expulsions rose
dramatically. However, during the Obama
administration, states and schools were sent a policy memo asking for a more
moderate interpretation of the policy requirements. Sadly, after the Parkland shooting, federal
level law makers have called for a return to the literal interpretation of “zero
tolerance” and for increasingly punitive responses to student behaviors.
We have had two decades to study the results of those zero
tolerance policies and to see if they do indeed work. The short answer is “No, they do not work.” Why?
A synthesis of a number of studies shows that schools that
have high suspension rates demonstrate low academic performance rates for the
school. These performance rates are
those measured by whatever academic assessment has been required by the
state. Additionally, studies of student
attitudes show that schools that have a high number of suspensions have
students and families who believe the school to be punitive instead of trying
to help students and their families. The
students in the studies often cited the reason for a suspended student’s
behavior as being rooted in institutional oppression based on race, creed,
socioeconomic condition, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. These observations made the students less
likely to view the school, its teachers and administrators as sympathetic to
the needs of young people, and more likely to be unfair and arbitrary. (Black, 2018)
In other words, the greater the number of suspensions and
expulsions in a school, the more poorly the school did academically and in the
perceptions of the students and their families.
Further, there is a direct correlation between suspension
and the so-called school to prison pipeline.
In an article about the reasons why school punishments do not work,
Marie Amaro cites an Australian study that found “students were 4.5 times more likely to
engage in criminal activity when they were suspended” than when they were simply
truant. She further asks, “Jails are
full of people who do not respond to the threat of incarceration so why do we
think that loss of recess or suspension will change a student’s behaviour?” (Amaro)
To be absolutely fair in this discussion, I must report that I was not the only administrator who disliked the zero tolerance policies and who did not always follow them. However, often the reasons why school leaders did not follow them had to do with another punitive piece of legislation: the 2000 iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The ESEA has been around for nearly 60 years, and is renewed approximately every 10 years. Each time it is revised, it is given a new name: Goals 2000, Every Student Succeeds Act, or, in 2000, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The ESEA is currently called Every Student Succeeds Act and does away with many of the NCLB regulations — therefore, those who lay the blame for the problems in education on NCLB may need to look at the ESSA more closely.
NCLB was the first time that there were punitive measures
against schools and districts that did not show “adequate yearly progress” in
academic achievement, or in school behavior issues. Under NCLB, schools that were deemed “persistently
unsafe” were sanctioned in progressively harsher ways. As a result, many school superintendents directed
administrators to under-report acts of school violence, and to deal with, for
example, fist-fights, without resorting to out-of-school suspensions.
This institutional dishonesty resulted in some very
interesting efforts to encourage young people to avoid violent behavior. In one school district near the one where I
worked, the middle school principal would fly a special flag outside of the
school building on days when there were no fights. Other schools adopted school-wide reward
programs such as point and level systems that gave students rewards such as
weekly movie afternoons if the student had earned enough points to be
considered at the highest level of positive behavior.
Many schools seemed to jump onto the positive rewards
bandwagon in an effort to encourage positive behavior. We saw systems like “catch them being good”
in which adults would give a tangible reward to students who did something
positive. We saw “Character Counts”
programs in which students were expected to demonstrate one of the six pillars
of ethical behavior, and in which students who did demonstrate those behaviors
were given a tangible reward of some kind.
The common theme of these programs was to give students tangible
rewards if they followed the rules and who were recognized by teachers and
staff as “behaving”.
I can almost hear readers saying, “What’s wrong with
that? That’s the opposite of punishing
misbehavior, isn’t it?”
Well, yes, and no.
Yes, giving tangible rewards like movies, or extra recess,
or special privileges, candy, treats, tickets, or whatever, is the opposite of
punitive measures that seek to punish those who do not “behave”. But the reality is that these programs do not
We have known since the 1970s at least that giving a person
a tangible reward actually decreases their enjoyment of that activity. Daniel Pink, in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, summarizes
these studies from an economics perspective.
(I highly recommend listening to or watching Pink’s TED Talk.) But Pink is not the first person to call for
end to “stickering students to death” as I used to call it. Alfie Kohn has long been an outspoken
champion of making schools less about rewards and more about learning.
I’ve written about this phenomenon before, and I will repeat
here: promising treats, extra recesses,
or other tangible rewards will not make students more successful. It will not make students adopt the behaviors
that are rewarded. In fact, it will make
students less likely to see the behavior or academics as something worthy to
do, and more likely to make them see those things as means to an end. They will do the minimum to get the maximum
reward. It will not make those students
who are not rewarded envious enough of the reward to have them change their
behavior on their own. It does make
students see the reward as handed out consistently to students based on
something other than their behavior – for example, students perceive that athletes
get rewards more often than non-athletes.
It can also result in the same phenomenon reported in Black article,
that students see rewards and punishments being unfair and punitively applied
to those who really need help.
Dr. Ruby Payne, quoted in an article about the effectiveness
of punishment in schools, says that while teachers may see punishment and
rewards as flip sides of the same problem, students do not. She goes on to say that behaviorist theory
that says to reward one behavior and punish another may work when one is
observing rats in the laboratory, or training animals, but it doesn’t work so
clearly with human beings. (Morrison, 2014)
Rick Wormeli ,another “big name” in education, comes at this
argument from the perspective of making meaningful changes in schools and from
standards-based grading. In one of his
videos available on YouTube, he discusses the concept of make-up work and
assessing students who fail to turn in homework. In it he says, that students who raise their
hands, sit down in their chairs, do work when we tell them to do it, do it, not
from a fear of punishment, but from hope.
He says it is not about “you can get a horse to water but you can’t make
it drink. No, it is about you can get a
horse to water, but you can’t make him thirsty.” He advocates for making students “thirsty”
and to do that they have to have hope. (Stenhouse Publishers, 2010)
So how do we, as Rick Wormeli says, communicate hope to
First, we have to change our perspective on what works and
what does not work when talking about managing behavior. All of the resources I consulted stated
this: We must reform how we manage
student behavior, not with punishments or rewards, but by teaching students the
behaviors we expect.
Harry and Rosemary Wong have advocated this approach for
decades. They say that if we just give
rewards or apply negative consequences, we are applying discipline, we are not
managing the classroom or the behavior.
They repeat over and over again that we must teach students what we
expect them to do, not just with academics, but with behaviors as well. (Wong, 2018)
Understand, this is not a quick or easy fix. Many teachers have not received much
instruction in classroom management.
They have been expected to simply acquire these skills by osmosis or
some other process. Those who were
required to take a specific class in classroom management often did not really
embrace the information. They did what
was expected of them, but continued to believe that punishment was the real way
to change student behavior. After all,
the college students would say, they changed their behavior when their parents
This last is a misconception about how parents teach
children about what to do in any given situation. Parents teach children in several ways that
do not include punishments. They
demonstrate what they want, using what we educators would call direct instruction. They also employ indirect instruction by
modeling expected behaviors – sometimes behaviors educators do not want to see
in schools! Parents have children
practice the desired behaviors over and over again, primarily because parents
have more opportunity to be with children – they are with children when they
are not in school and during school vacations.
(I am using “parents” loosely, as meaning whomever stands in for
parents, including those providing child care.)
In addition, parents are usually loved by children, and are far more
important to the child than a teacher.
This latter part is especially true if the child has the
perception that “the teacher doesn’t like me” or “the school is out to get me.” This is the result of the negative side of
the self-fulfilling prophesy, and of being both on the receiving end of school
punishments or observing that these punishments are applied in a manner thee
student sees as unfair.
I often hear, “By this age, students should know . . . “ Yes, they probably should know, but they have
just demonstrated they do not know. Or
they may know what Ms. Jones down the hall means or expects but not what you
mean by something or what you expect students to do. It may be fine to just toss work onto Ms.
Jones’ desk, but you want the work put neatly into a particular tray. You must teach students how to do that! It may be fine in Ms. Jones’ room to holler
across the room, “Hey Teach! I need some
help here!” It may not be okay with you,
and if not, you must teach the desired behavior!
When we teach behaviors, we have to follow the formula we
use when teaching how to find the area of a rectangle or the steps in the
scientific principle: teach, practice,
reinforce, reteach, practice some more, and reinforce again. Just saying do this or do that at the
beginning of the year won’t help.
Expecting students to remember everything you expect when they’ve had 3
out of 5 days home with snow days, won’t help.
We must teach the behaviors, and review them when students have been
away from school or in a situation where the expectations have been different
for a while. Review expectations after
having a sub as well. It doesn’t have to
be a big, long review. It can be as
simple as, “In just a minute I’m going to ask if you all turned in your
homework when you walked into the room.
Tell me what it is you are supposed to do when you turn in
homework? Jackie? Yes, that is correct, we . . .”
Middle school and high school teachers often describe
student behaviors that they find particularly difficult to change. This can be true for a number of
First, one of my personal rules is “the larger the kid, the
larger the behavior.” Behaviors that
started out fairly small when the student was in kindergarten have compounded
until they are “larger” by the time they are in 7th grade. A kindergartener who throws a temper tantrum
is more easily handled than a 7th grader who is nearly the height and
weight of an adult.
Second, as children get older, there are more opportunities
for life experiences to leave a permanent mark or scar. What may have made a child cry in 1st
grade has become so deeply entrenched by 7th grade that it may have
completely changed that student’s perspective on life, leaving him/her with
chronic depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues. The 7th grader has had at least 8
years of school experiences, making re-learning or changing a behavior that
much more difficult.
Third, the peer group has become more and more
important. An early elementary student
may do something just to have the teacher smile at him. A 7th grader is much more likely
to try to get other 7th graders to approve of his behavior.
Fourth, a 7th grader has had far more
opportunities to learn what works and what doesn’t work. She may have learned that if she doesn’t like
math, she can act like this or that and she will be sent out of the room. He may have learned that if the lunch room is
where he will be bullied, he can earn a detention and avoid the lunch room all
together. If she think that teachers are
usually out to get her, she will see what the teacher does, not what the
teacher intends, as reinforcing that belief.
All of these are even more true of the high school student.
One obvious solution would be for specialized teachers to
work with disruptive students. I started
out as a special education teacher, and that is what we were expected to accomplish. However, I have worked in teacher preparation
for 13 years and as a school principal and curriculum coordinator for 12. In the last 15 years, I have seen a troubling
trend in special education. That is,
these specialists are viewed as people to help students complete work assigned
in “regular” classes rather than as having something to teach students separate
from the “regular” classroom. More
recently I have seen this trend in states or in districts that have a near 100%
“commitment” to the integration of special needs children into the regular
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating for a return to the bad
old days when kids with special needs were hidden away in basement rooms and
who never saw the rest of the school or their peers except in art, music, and
PE classes. (That latter is another
story altogether.) What I am saying is
that students with special needs in learning disabilities and behavior
disorders need to have specialized instruction in how to work with their different
abilities. The LD student needs to know
how to use his/her strengths to help him/her learn. The BD student needs to learn ways to better
control his/her behavior before being out in the general population. Both are areas of instruction that a teacher
with a four year degree has had no time to learn.
In teaching a junior/senior class in classroom management, I
was appalled to learn that the students knew nothing or next to nothing about
working with ADD/ADHD students who do not necessarily qualify for and IEP, let
alone knowing how to work with BD students, and nothing about oppositional
defiant disorder let alone conduct disorders.
Yet they were expected to work with all of these children in the regular
classroom often without support from a “push in” special education
teacher. Even worse in my eyes was that many
were getting additional endorsements in special education besides their “regular”
teaching license with almost no additional training.
How can we expect any regular teacher with a four year
degree to know what to do about students whose poor behavior has taken root for
so many years?
Yes, these students can benefit, sometimes, from having an
aide work with them. However, few
special education aides have any training whatsoever in working with these
students. And what do we expect when we
pay them minimum wage for 30 hours a week or less so we can get by without
providing health insurance?
Neither is what is meant when we write an IEP that says a
student needs an aide or when we say that s/he is eligible for specialized
instruction. Folks, that is exactly what
it means when we say a student is eligible for an IEP! We are saying the student needs specialized
instruction from a teacher trained to work with his/her disability.
Besides the lack of training, many teachers find that the
special education teacher is bogged down with far too many students than s/he
can teach effectively, even if s/he is only expected to help students complete
work assigned by others.
To be fair, those who set the school budget and who oversee
the instructional program too often do not have much more training than the
regular classroom teacher, and often that training came many more years
ago. School board members in many states
do not need to have any particular level of education to qualify for the
position. They are elected on whether or
not their campaign promises strike the voting population as needed or
reasonable. And few of the people in a
community will vote to raise property taxes to improve school funding.
So we must understand that changing this situation will not
bet a quick or easy fix.
There are a few things a teacher can do to help improve the
situation. But it will not be a silver
bullet! And often, the best time to
start these changes is at the beginning of the year.
What we can do:
Relationships Teachers can and must develop relationships with students. It is not enough to develop a relationship with those students who follow the rules, complete homework, and are generally viewed as “the good kids.” When we do this, we perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophesy. Students live up or down to the teacher’s perceptions of them, even if the teacher does not consciously treat the students differently.
I recommend greeting students at the door of the classroom
at the beginning of the day or at the beginning of each class period. When I first heard of doing this, I was teaching
science and saw the passing time between classes as the time when I could
quickly set up equipment for the next class.
I had to revise how I structured my working day, arriving at school a
bit earlier and setting up the equipment for the whole day, not just class
period by class period. I had to get
over my initial feelings of how unfair this was to me, and to focus instead on
I also recommend that teachers work to improve their
relationship with students by improving their relationship with the students’
families. Making positive phone calls
home is the best way to do that as study after study has shown. Families view a voicemail message as being
much more personal than an email, especially when it appears the email is mass-generated. And we still cannot guarantee that adult
family members will use electronic media with any regularity! I’ve written about ways to go about making
positive parent contacts. When I taught
middle school I saw about 120 students a day, but I managed to usually meet my
goal of contacting each student’s family by phone once per month. It meant making about 6 phone calls per day. I was always sure to have a quick thing to
say, hoping for voicemail, but telling parents who actually answered the phone,
“I have about 30 seconds to let you know this” so they would be more
understanding if I had to cut the call short.
Although I do not have the article at my fingertips, I
recall reading where a teacher would quietly some of the more problematic
students as they entered the room, “I’m glad you are here today. I’m planning on calling your mom (or aunt, or
foster mom, etc.) today and telling her how you are doing in school so I’m
going to be watching you closely today to be able to tell her something good.” It sounded a bit like what I did as a
principal. I couldn’t hope to call every
family about every one of the 500 children in the building each month, so I
picked out those kids who had the worst reputations for behavior and focused on
calling home each month with something positive about those students.
I can say from experience as both a teacher, a principal,
and parent that those positive phone calls work!
Use Praise and Encouragement, not Tangible Rewards We know tangible rewards don’t work so don’t use them. Yes, that is difficult when other teachers use them, but it can be done.
When I am talking about praise and encouragement, I am not
talking about saying, “Good job, Kathryn”.
That is not praise. In fact, most
students hear it as so much noise – think how Charlie Brown hears his teacher
talking. Others see that “good job” as
something other kids hear but that they don’t – more ways we perpetuate the
Useful praise tells the receiver exactly what s/he is doing
right and why. Students cannot hope to
replicate the behavior if they do not explicitly know what it is they are
supposed to do! Here is the formula for
effective praise and encouragement:
Get the student’s attention – usually by saying
their name quietly or by talking directly to the student
Tell the student what s/he has done that is
right or praiseworthy. For example,
saying, “You were able to hold your tongue and not say something mean to Gloria
when she knocked your books down.”
Tell the student why that behavior is
positive. For example, “Remember how
when you would yell at the other student, it was usually you that got into
trouble? By holding your tongue, you
were able to avoid making the situation worse and having you get into trouble.”
If you can, acknowledge the effort the student
made to do this thing. For example, “I
know it takes a lot of effort and self-control to do that.”
Then you can add words of praise like, “that was
awesome”, or “good for you”, etc.
It is important that teachers make the praise about the
students, not about the teacher. Saying
something like , “I like how you did this or that” is not effective because it
makes the praise contingent upon what the teacher likes. Students need to know that there is a goal
larger than what a teacher likes or dislikes.
If it is just about what the teacher likes, we reinforce the perception
that teachers are arbitrary and unfailr.
Use Restorative Justice Practices instead of Punishments There are some very good articles about restorative justice practices found on the Edutopia website. In a nutshell, restorative justice practices focus on helping students make up for what they have done, and learn from the situation rather than applying punishments. Students do not learn from punishments because they are designed to make students fear the negative consequences of a particular behavior rather than learning an alternative to that behavior.
A case in point: many
schools use detentions and they do so because they believe students will want
to avoid getting a detention. This does
not acknowledge that students often do not know how or what to do instead of
the behavior that earned them a detention, that detention is often preferable
to being with others at recess or in the lunch room, or that often older
students have incorporated the idea of being “given” a detention with their
personal identity. (Note, in schools
that do use detentions, never say you are “giving” a detention. That again reinforces the idea that
detentions are awarded in an arbitrary or punitive manner. Instead, always talk about the student
earning the detention or “In this school, that behavior means you must go to
detention.” Never make the behavior
about what the teacher likes or dislikes!)
Too often we think that if this small negative consequence
didn’t work then we just need something stronger to use as a deterrent. Not so.
Less harsh penalties often have a greater effect on the student than the
fear of a harsher one. It is more
effective to hold a student after class for a minute or so to talk with the
teacher (keep it short!) than to threaten a detention.
Don’t assume! Teach the expected behavior! I often hear, “By this age, students should know . . . “ Yes, they probably should know, but they have just demonstrated they do not know. Or they may know what Ms. Jones down the hall means or expects but not what you mean by something or what you expect students to do. It may be fine to just toss work onto Ms. Jones’ desk, but you want the work put neatly into a particular tray. You must teach students how to do that! It may be fine in Ms. Jones’ room to holler across the room, “Hey Teach! I need some help here!” It may not be okay with you, and if not, you must teach the desired behavior!
When we teach behaviors, we have to follow the formula we
use when teaching how to find the area of a rectangle or the steps in the
scientific principle: teach, practice,
reinforce, reteach, practice some more, and reinforce again. Just saying do this or do that at the
beginning of the year won’t help.
Expecting students to remember everything you expect when they’ve had 3
out of 5 days home with snow days, won’t help.
We must teach the behaviors, and review them when students have been
away from school or in a situation where the expectations have been different
for a while. Review expectations after
having a sub as well. It doesn’t have to
be a big, long review. It can be as
simple as, “In just a minute I’m going to ask if you all turned in your
homework when you walked into the room.
Tell me what it is you are supposed to do when you turn in
homework? Jackie? Yes, that is correct, we . . .”
Look for the Positives, not the Negatives It is very important that teachers always focus on what kids are doing right, not what they are doing wrong. That means recognizing and reinforcing when students take baby steps in the right direction. We do that when we teach kids to do double digit multiplication. We will say, “Yes, you got this part and this part right. Now, what do you do next?” Sadly, we forget that behavior is also something that is learned and changed incrementally. When we look for positives, we are much more likely to see the student who is taking those baby steps in the right direction. We are more likely to notice that student who didn’t yell at Gloria when she knocked his/her books on the floor. We are more likely to get the behavior we want when we actually look for it!
I know this is much easier to say than to do. It takes a true shift in perspective. I used to make little notes to myself,
usually in the form of a symbol, and put them where I would see them, just to
remind myself to do this and not that. For
example, I would use symbols like these to remind myself to use the effective
Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin We have to let students (and parents) know that we really like them. We may not like something they did, but we like the person the student is. We cannot do that unless we focus on the positive!
On a larger scale, there are things schools must do if they
are going to turn things around, if the school is going to improve the
experience of schooling. It is not going
to improve if schools and districts adopt policies that punish students rather
than help educate students to live better lives.
Don’t expect that adopting any of the above will change
things over night, or in a week, or even in a month. Remember, most students have had too many
years of negative school experience to overcome. Indeed many of these recommendations work
best if initiated at the beginning of a school year. However, one can make improvements in our own
lives as well as the lives of the students by even taking small steps.
Given that the school year is half way done, I would
recommend doing the following:
Make positive phone calls home
Teach, practice, reinforce (and repeat) the
Hate the sin but love the sinner
I know that I have not addressed all of the concerns
expressed to me about this topic, but this blog post is twice the length of any
other one I’ve done, so I will have to look at those areas in other posts.
Take a deep breath!
You can do this!
Works Cited Amaro, M. (n.d.). Why Punishment is Ineffective Behavior Management. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from The Highly Effective Teacher: https://thehighlyeffectiveteacher.com/why-punishment-is-ineffective-behaviour-management/ Black, D. W. (2018, March 15). Zero tolerance discipline policies won’t fix school shootings. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from The Conversation: Adademic Rigor; Journalistic Flair: http://theconversation.com/zero-tolerance-discipline-policies-wont-fix-school-shootings-93399 Breslow, J. M. (2012, September 21). By the numbers: the cost of dropping out of high school. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/by-the-numbers-dropping-out-of-high-school/ Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts. Retrieved February 17, 2019, from gatesfoundation.org: https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/TheSilentEpidemic3-06Final.pdf K12 Academics. (2011). School Leaving Age. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from K12 Academics: https://www.k12academics.com/dropping-out/school-leaving-age Maxwell, Z. (2013, November 27). The School-to-Prison Pipeline Is Targeting Your Child. Retrieved September 12, 2018, from Ebony: https://www.ebony.com/news/the-school-to-prison-pipeline-is-targeting-your-child-405/ Morrison, N. (2014, August 31). The Surprising Truth about Discipline in Schools. Retrieved February 12, 2019, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2014/08/31/the-surprising-truth-about-discipline-in-schools/#5bdd6ec93f83 National Education Association. (2012). Raising Compulsory School Age Requirements: A Dropout Fix? (An NEA Policy Brief). Retrieved February 13, 2019, from National Education Association: http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB40raisingcompulsoryschoolage2012.pdf Stenhouse Publishers. (2010, December 14). Rick Wormeli: Redos, Retakes, and Do-Overs, Part One. Retrieved February 16, 2019, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-3PFfIfvI Wexler, N. (2018, November 29). Why Graduation Rates Are Rising But Student Achievement Is Not. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2018/11/29/why-graduation-rates-are-rising-but-student-achievement-is-not/#271c02216a7f Wong, H. a. (2018). The First Days of School: How to be an effective teacher 5e. Harry K. Wong Publications.
Have you ever had to pry yourself out of bed in the morning and shuffle off to school even though you’d rather stay home?
Have you ever had to make polite small talk with someone you
really do not like or do not respect?
Have you ever felt crabby and irritable when you were in a
situation where you couldn’t express that?
Have you ever had a period in your life where you weren’t
particularly happy with yourself?
Do you ever have days when your best is far less than your
best on other days?
I’m sure you could say yes to all of the situations
described above. I certainly have! There have been many days in my life where I’ve
had to paste a smile on my face when I really wanted to pout or stomp my
feet. There have been many times where I
have had to “fake it ‘til you make it” at work or in other parts of my life. And I have had periods in my life where I was
not pleased with myself but was still expected to meet my obligations, when my “best”
was nowhere near as good as my capabilities.
Let’s face it: It is
not always easy living out lives! And
most of us have learned that we cannot always show everyone what we are
thinking or feeling.
The students who come to us for six hours or so every day
often have the same difficulties, but they are not as mature as we are and
often cannot fake it. Not all of them
are able to overcome their inner emotions and present a more perfect front to
the world. It is equally true that some
will have learned to fake it rather than let a teacher know what they are
Right? What does this have to do
with classroom rules?
There are very well-meaning teachers who make rules that
they themselves would not be able to follow.
They make rules about emotions, things that are not really observable or
I used this commercially
available rules poster as an illustration last week and I labeled some of the “rules”
as really being goals.
Let’s look at these a little more closely.
Always do your best. How do we know if what a student is doing is
his/her very best or the best s/he can do right now?
yourself. How do we know a
student believes in him/herself?
The answer to both of those questions is we don’t. We honestly do not know if anyone believes in
him/herself. Sure, we can see certain
behaviors that make us believe that Susie believes in herself, but we really
don’t know for sure.
You might say, “a student who believes in herself would keep
trying when they find something difficult”
or “he would turn in his homework because he would know that his school
grades matter” or “she would wear clean clothes and have better hygiene if she
believes in herself”.
All of those behaviors might lead us to think the student
doesn’t believe in himself. But we
cannot know for sure. We cannot see
inside any student’s head to know what s/he is really feeling or thinking. In fact, many of the students who come to us
every day have learned, sometimes painfully, to fake it.
Let me try to clarify.
What is going on with the student in this photo?
You might say the student is tired, or isolating himself, or
that he is bored, maybe angry. You might
say any of those things and you might be right.
You can cite your experience that says that when a student has his head
down on the back of a seat like that he is feeling this way or that. And you might be right. But you might not be.
You really cannot know for certain what is going on inside a
student’s head. Yes, this one might be
tired, or sad, or bored, or angry. He
might be isolating himself for a reason that has negative connotations. But he also might have a headache. He could be overwhelmed by the noise around
him, or trying to control his emotional reaction to something, or he could be
hungry. He could just be tired of
holding his head up!
In fact, the site where I found that image had it under “bored
child’, “angry child”, and “sad child”.
My third point about classroom rules is that the rules
should be about things that are observable and measurable. If we make rules about thoughts, attitudes,
or emotions, we will be forever chastising students. And we can be wrong about it, too.
Take this young lady.
Is she engaged because she is “ready to learn” as the rules poster
says? Does she believe in herself?
She does appear to be doing what she’s been asked to do if
she was asked to do some school work.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Once I had to deal with a first grade girl who, by all
appearances, seemed to be a model student in the classroom. On the playground, she was far from
well-behaved. She was the leader of a
group of girls who were terrorizing other girls. This young lady was actually a bully who was
directing others to carry out her bullying behavior. When I talked to her about it, she informed
me that she wrote out plans for who she was going to tell to do what to
whom. She had it all plotted out in a
notebook in her desk. When I asked, the
teacher told me that this little girl “loved to write” and would get done with
her work early so she could spend time writing stories. The teacher had to see the bullying plans the
girl had written to believe she could be at all involved in this playground
This was an experienced teacher and not one that was easily
fooled by students. However, this little
girl had the teacher snowed.
We just do not know what is going on inside other people.
I often see rules that say something about “respect yourself”. I understand what the teacher is getting at
when they have this as a rule. The
teacher believes, perhaps correctly, that a person who respects themselves will
treat others well and will do what they need to do to make their aspirations
come true. However, I also know that
children who are abused often present a “perfect” front to the world outside
while inside they have little respect for themselves. I’ve worked with young people who are “cutters”,
who cut themselves to relieve stress and painful emotions, yet few of their
teachers knew anything was amiss.
I often see rules that say something about “have a good
attitude”. Again, I understand that the
teachers are trying to say that the students should act like they want to
learn, that they should be willing to try new things, or to persevere when learning something that is
more difficult. I want students to do
that, too. Yet, we cannot know if
students have a good attitude. We can
only know if they appear to
have a good attitude.
We make rules about ‘respect the teacher” when we really do
not know if they actually respect us. We
just want them to treat us as if they respect us. We make rules about “make friends” not
because we really think everyone needs to be friends with all 500 or 2000 kids
in the building, but because we want them to act in a friendly manner. We make rules about “have fun” not because we
think that memorizing multiplication tables is all that fun, but because we
want them to learn to love learning.
We don’t expect teachers to have fun all day long, or to be
friends with all of the adults who work in the building, or to respect even the
most bumbling of colleague or administrator, although we do expect them to
treat that person respectfully. We certainly
“have a good attitude” all day long, every day.
So can we really expect students to do so?
That’s what we are usually trying to get at when we make
rules that are about things that are not observable or measurable. We want students to behave as if those things
How can we hold students accountable for such “rules”?
I asked that of a group of college students in a classroom
management class. I was told, angrily, “I’m
not an idiot! If a student is having a
bad day, I won’t force him to follow that rule!”
If that pre-service teacher meant she would be sensitive to
the students’ needs, then more power to her.
But if it is a RULE, then we are obligated to hold students
accountable. Thinking back to the
traffic laws analogy in previous posts, a police officer is rarely, if ever,
going to say, “Oh, wow. You are having a
bad day, so I’m not going to write you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit
or rolling through that stop sign.” If
it is the law, a rule, then it is in place at all times even if we don’t feel
like following it.
(Yes, there is something called civil disobedience, but that
is something else. Come on, don’t rain
on my analogy!)
Let’s say you did allow Fred off the hook for not following
the rule “Have a good attitude.” The
other students in the room observe what happens when Fred tells you that he is
having a bad day, and you do not follow through on enforcing the rule. The next time you try to hold Herman
accountable for that rule, he tells he is having a bad day. You really cannot dispute it because you don’t
know what went on before Fred got to school and you don’t know how he is really
feeling about it.
Teachers may believe that they are trying to be equitable
and responsive to students’ needs by enforcing the rules sometimes and not
other times. However, I would be willing
to bet that, even though the teacher means well, s/he begins to enforce the
rules in a way that reinforces the self-fulfilling prophesy, being flexible
with some students and inflexible with others based on his/her perceptions
about that student.
We all know what happens if a teacher is not consistent
about enforcing rules. Students begin to
resent the fact that the rules apply to some, but not all. They try to argue about fairness. And they begin to test the teacher every day –
is today a day when the rules are enforced?
Or is today one of the days when they are not? Are they enforced for this student and not
That is a recipe for chaos.
In addition, students live up or down to their perceptions
about the teacher’s beliefs and attitude towards them.
Take a look at your list of classroom rules. Do any other them deal with things that are
not observable or measurable? If so,
what behavior is it that you are trying to get students to do? Is there another way to get that behavior?
I used to tell students to “give me the appearance that you
are paying attention to me. Look in my
direction. Nod your head sometimes.” Of course, I said it humorously, and the students
laughed, but there was a bit of seriousness as well. If a student was doing something that made it
appear that he was not paying attention to me, I would make another joke about
it and most of the students would comply.
Think about how you might get students to do X besides
making a rule about it.
We’ve looked at four of Roe’s Rules for Rules so far:
Rules must be about things students can actually
control or know how to do.
Rules must be about things that are reasonable.
Rules must be in place at all times.
Rules must be about things that are actually observable
We will look at another aspect of rules next week.
Do you ever have students who do not seem to follow a rule
all of the time? Sometimes THAT student
follows it and sometimes THAT student does not.
Sometimes we think a student is being deliberately malicious when really
THAT student is simply confused.
I’ve observed this many times in classrooms. For example, I saw a student who answered the
teacher’s question like they were having a conversation. In other words, the student did not raise his
hand and wait to be called on. He simply
answered the question. The teacher
snapped at the student, telling him that he had broken the rule and would have
a consequence. The boy first appeared
confused, and then angry. He said, “That’s
not fair! You let ___ answer you!” The teacher argued back – but that is another
blog topic. Suffice it to say that the
teacher and the student disagreed about his behavior. The result was anger, resentment, and lost
I noticed that the teacher had a rule about raising hands to
talk. Yet the students had just been working
in small groups. In the small groups the
students talked to each other naturally, answering questions, interjecting, and
even interrupting. As the students went
back to their usual seats, one girl stepped up next to the teacher and asked a
question. The teacher answered, then
turned to the whole class and asked her question. THAT student blurted out an answer. The teacher saw THAT student as being
deliberately rude to her by blurting out the answer. I saw it as THAT student, even though he was
in the large group now, still using the “rules” that were okay in the small
group. He was also correct that the
teacher had answered ___’s question, but THAT student did not see the
difference between being next to the teacher to talk to her and talking from
This is an illustration of my second point about rules: Rules are things that are in place at all
times. Rules should not be something
that changes during the day or even the week.
If it is a rule, it should be a rule all of the time.
Let’s look at the speed limit analogy again. The speed limit sign says you can go no
faster than that particular number. Many
of us elect to go five miles per hour faster than the number on the sign. We know we should keep up with traffic and
not be the slow car. Yet, the police
would be within their rights to ticket any of us doing that extra five miles
per hour. The law says we are supposed
to drive no more than the speed limit, and, although we choose to not follow
that law, we know we can be penalized for it.
The speed limit law is like a classroom rule. It is in place at all times.
On the other hand, if the so-called rule is sometimes in
place and sometimes not, then that “rule” is actually a procedure.
Let’s go back to the story about the student who blurted out
during whole group instruction. The
teacher had a rule about raising one’s hand to talk. However, that rule was not in place at all
times. When students were in small
groups, they were not expected to raise their hands to talk. When the student was next to the teacher,
s/he didn’t have to raise his/her hand to talk.
So raising a hand to talk was only true for large group
instruction. A raised hand could also be
used for a small group to indicate to the teacher that the group had a question
and were trying to get the teacher’s attention.
The hand-raising “rule” was only in place some of the time,
so instead of being a rule (think “law”), it was a procedure.
Harry and Rosemary Wong define a procedure as “how we do
things here.” To get a turn to talk in
that classroom, the students had to switch between different
circumstances. When they were in a large
group, they had to raise their hands to get a turn to talk. When they were in small groups, they could
talk to each other without raising their hands.
If they wanted the teacher to come to their group for some reason, they
raised their hands. If a single student
had approached the teacher and was standing right beside her, s/he didn’t have
to raise his/her hand. So there were
actually several different ways the students got a turn to talk.
When we talk in different ways depending on the situation,
we are following a set of procedures.
Students can learn that when we do this, we act this way,
and when we do that we act that way.
They just need to be taught what to do at which time, and to be reminded
that X behavior is expected in this situation.
We can and should teach students when and how they are
expected to talk in various situations that happen at school. Doing so helps the student learn skills s/he
will use in the future, in the classroom, on the job, and out in public.
Let’s take a look at
some other rules and see if they can be in place at all times.
This is a picture of a rules poster available at various
teacher supply stores.
Rule 1. Yes, we want
students to listen to us and to their classmates when the classmate is
talking. However, is this something that
is done all of the time, without exception?
If students are working in small groups, we do want them to listen to
each other, but we don’t want them to listen to other groups. If they are working individually and the
teacher stops to talk to Susie, we do not expect all of the other students to
stop working and listen to the teacher.
So this is not something that can be in place at all times.
If I wanted a rule about students talking, I would word it
like this: “Talk only on your turn.” I would make sure I taught students what I
meant by this, and I would continuously remind students about how to get a turn
to talk during this particular activity.
Rule 2: Yes, we want
students to do as they are told and to do it right away. Absolutely!
However, can you think of any situation in the classroom when students
might not follow directions? The only
one that I can think of is if the student does not understand the
directions. You might be thinking, “they
should ask questions if they do not understand.” I agree with you, however I also know that
students do not ask for clarification for a number of reasons. They might be embarrassed because they think
they are the only student who does not understand. They may think they understand but they don’t. As a result, this rule is something that
could be a rule, but only if the adult in the room consistently ensures that
everyone really does understand, has shown students both examples and
non-examples, and has thought of everything a student might have misconceptions
If it were my classroom, I would skip this rule
entirely. However, there may be some
variations I have not yet observed.
Rule 3: We do not
want students to hit each other with anything.
Ever. So this is a rule that can
be in place at all times.
A side note: I’ve
seen teacher have a rule that said “Keep hands and feet to yourself.” Students would poke each other with pencils,
hit each other with books, snap each other with rubber bands, etc. The students would look at her and at me with
wide-eyed innocence and claim they hadn’t broken the rule because they hadn’t
hit the other with their hands or their feet.
And they were actually right.
Remember, there always seems to be a budding lawyer in every class, so
don’t give them the opportunity to quibble.
Make sure you add “and other objects” to this rule!
I would keep this rule or one similar to it.
Rule 4: It is very
difficult to know what exactly will disturb others. I personally want complete silence when I am
doing school-like work like writing this blog.
When I taught at the college level, I surprised a few students who were
working in the computer lab outside my office by asking them to use ear buds
when listening to music or when they were watching videos. They probably thought I was a cranky old lady
who didn’t like their music. That wasn’t
it at all. I cannot do intellectual work
when there is distracting sound. Others
can. So what actually is the definition
of “disturbing others”? I can see
pestering another student as being in violation of this rule and I can see
being “too loud” as violating it as well.
But “too loud” would have to be defined.
There are many circumstances in the classroom where we
expect students to make some noise. We
expect them to talk to each other when they are in small groups. We expect that engaged hum that happens when
learning is taking place.
You might be thinking, “Well, they shouldn’t shout or
scream,” and I would agree with you.
There are noises and sounds that shouldn’t happen when others are
But this rule does not specify when the students should work
quietly or what it is that might disturb others.
A local school uses a procedure that appears to work quite
well. When the teacher gives
instructions on what the students are expected to do, they tell the students
that their voices should be at ___, giving a number to fit into the blank. A zero means no talking at all. A 1 would be the softest of whispers, and so
on. Most teachers I observed there put
small group conversations at 3 or 4.
This is a very clear procedure that all of the teachers in
the school use so it is consistent from room to room and from grade level to
I would classify rule 4 as too vague to be a rule. It does not tell the reader what is meant by “work
quietly” or “do not disturb”. The
meaning of each of these phrases changes with the activity. So this should be covered by a procedure, not
If it were my classroom, I would have procedures to follow
that would cut down on disturbing others.
Rule 5: I believe I
have talked about the slippery term “respect” in other blog posts. Teachers often say, “They should know what
respect means!” Yet respect has many
different meanings. What constitutes
respect to you or me could be the height of disrespect depending on culture and
depending on upbringing. We may find it
disrespectful to put our feet up on classroom furniture and ask, “Do you put
your feet up on the table at home?” only to hear a student respond sincerely, “Yes.” When I worked on the reservation, children
who were raised traditionally learned that it was disrespectful to look an
elder in the face. Their upbringing and
my upbringing clashed when I expected a student to look at me when I was
talking and their training said that was disrespectful. No matter how long or how hard I’ve thought
about it, I haven’t figured out a universal definition for respect. As a result, I avoid using that word in
What exactly are we trying to get at with this rule? Are we trying to say “do to others as you
want them to do to you”? Are we saying “no
vandalism”? Are we saying, “Do yell ‘hey,
Teach’ to get my attention”? I know what
I mean, but is it the same as what you mean?
Are there cultural differences we have to consider?
I think this is a poor rule for a couple of reasons. First, it is not clear what is meant by
it. Yes, the teacher could teach the
class what s/he means. That would help
it become a viable rule. Second, there
are so many cultural variations of “respect” that it is a poor rule unless we
are working in a school where everyone shares the exact same culture.
I would not have a rule that talked about respecting
anything unless I was sure everyone understood what is meant by it and they
were capable of finding ways around cultural imperatives to appear to match my
definition of respect.
Rule 6: Expecting
students to work and play in safe manner is not a bad rule. It is worded vaguely, and that could be a
I do not have any problem with vague rules. I think specific rules are easier because
they are cut and dried, but I also know that not all of life is cut and
dried. Vague rules have a lot more
wiggle room to them, so they can actually cover more situations than specific
rules, but they come with a built-in challenge:
not everyone knows what they mean.
My former students used to say, “Students should know what that means!”
and they are probably right. However,
not all students do know what you mean by X.
The teacher last year or in the classroom next door may mean something
different by it. They may not have been taught
this at home. They may be from a culture
that has a different interpretation. The
only way to make vague rules work is to explicitly teach students exactly what
you mean by it, and to allow the students a bit of practice time.
In classes like industrial technology, science, art, or any
class where there are safety procedures that must be followed, I highly
recommend a rule like this or a rule that says “Follow all safety procedures.” That way we can enforce it if a student
chooses to be reckless with a piece of equipment or with his/her behavior. After all, we do not want to send children
home missing a finger or an eye. Parents
frown on that.
If you teach a class where safety is not at risk because you
will not be using machinery or sharp objects, then you may want to skip a
safety rule. There are safety rules that
are whole-school rules, and whole-school rules are in place in individual
classrooms. You may want to save time
and energy by only specifying rules that are true in this particular classroom.
I taught science at the middle school level and art at the
high school level, so I would have a rule about following safety procedures.
That brings up another point about rules. Experts in classroom management and
discipline seem to agree that there should be no more than 5 rules in any given
classroom. Having more means that
students are likely to forget them.
This rules poster violates that recommendation because there are 6 rules.
There is another trend in classroom rules that is illustrated
by this poster, also for sale at teacher supply venues:
It seems that many classrooms have goals posted and call
then rules. On this poster, that covers
statements like “dream big”, “believe in yourself”, or “leave a little sparkle wherever
It is great to dream big.
I’m a fan. However, do you expect
to punish a student who does not dream big?
What about if s/he doesn’t believe in him/herself? I would argue that it is even problematic to
include “always do your best” as a rule.
Are you always at your best when you come to work? Do you ever have to talk yourself up before
the day begins? Do you make mistakes during the day? I do not know anyone, teacher or not, who
could possibly, always be at their best all day, every day. I am not sure it is humanly possible. Yet if we say it is a rule, then it must be
enforced and consequences assigned if it is not followed.
I’ve had pre-service teaches say, “Well, I’m not
stupid! I wouldn’t give a kid a
consequence for having a bad day!” They
were really quite angry at me when they said that, too! Of course they are not stupid. But if they do not plan to have it in force all
of the time, then it is not a rule. In
this case, it is not a procedure either.
It is a goal. It is or should be
everyone’s goal to be at their best every day, ready to learn, believing in
themselves, being sparkly, and dreaming big.
But we aren’t! We are human. We should expect students to be human, too.
It does not do students a service to say that these are
rules, that they are in place at all times.
We will have some students who are afraid that they may violate the
rule, and others who figure they can’t ever follow it so why bother.
If we have rules that are really goals, or if we have rules
that are not in place at all times, we send powerful messages to the
students. We are saying we are holding
you to an impossible standard. We are
saying we don’t really mean it even though we say this is the rule. I believe the latter opens us up to more
discipline problems in the classroom.
Students become confused when they don’t know what they are supposed to
do at this moment. Like the student I
described at the beginning, confusion can lead to breaking the rule, even if
the student doesn’t mean to do so. Worse
it can lead to accusations of being unfair and favoritism. This, in turn, leads to damaging that fragile
student-teacher relationship. And that,
as you know, leads to more problems.
Take a look at your classroom rules. Are each of them something that is in place
at all times? Are any of them so vague
that you must remind students regularly about how to follow them?
You can consider changing the classroom rules even if it is
in the middle of the year. To do so, sit
down with the class and say, “I don’t think the rules we have had were working
as well as I would like. Here are the
new class rules.” This is not something
you want to do every other week, but you can do it when you need to, when the
rules aren’t working like you’d wanted. You
will have to teach the students what you mean and remind students about the new
Next time, we will look at another one of Roe’s Rules for Rules.
Recently, I’ve received several Facebook posts asking for a
return to prayer in schools. I would
like to believe that the people who post these kinds of things are
well-meaning, and that they have not really thought this through.
I do not think prayer should be back in public schools because
they are public. That means that they are open to any and all, no matter the
creed. I have been an educator for 39
years. I have worked in both public and
parochial schools, so please do not think I am anti-religion. I am not.
There are no laws against prayer in schools. By law, students can bring their own copies of
scriptures, they can wear religious garb, they can form religious clubs, and
they can pray whenever they like as long as it is voluntary. Prayer led by students, for example around
the flag pole before school starts, is fine. In fact, that kind of prayer is protected by the
much maligned No Child Left Behind version of the Elementary and Secondary
What is forbidden is having school officials leading prayer, or
anything that makes it seem that the public school is teaching or promoting one
(Public schools can teach about religion, but they cannot teach
religion, if you catch the difference.)
There are schools where teacher-led, or administrator-led prayer
is fine, where it is the norm to teach a particular religion, and any parent
can choose to send their children there. These are parochial schools or other kinds of
private schools. These schools are not
usually supported by public taxes, and , yes, to send a child there one must
pay tuition. Some may find the tuition
to be prohibitive, yet I’ve worked in parochial schools where every single
student was there on scholarship, so tuition is not always a barrier to that
The point is that there are schools where a particular religion
is taught, practiced, and celebrated.
Any family can choose to have that kind of school for their
children. There are face-to-face
parochial schools and there are online parochial schools, so even those who
live in small towns can send their children to a school that has a religious
Often those who call for a return to prayer in schools are
engaging in a kind of nostalgia, a belief that things were better in the good
old days. But were they?
I can remember when some of the public schools I attended had
teachers or administrators who led prayer, and there were Christmas programs
that told the story of the Nativity. Let’s
go back to one of those years I can remember.
Fifty years ago was 1969.
That is the year when good things like the Apollo 11 moon landing and
Woodstock happened. Teachers and
administrators in many public schools led prayers. It was common to have high school graduation have
religious overtones. School Christmas
programs told the story of the Nativity, and children dressed up as angels and
vied to be chosen as Mary or Joseph. It
was also a year of much turmoil. We were
still feeling the effects of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and
Robert Kennedy. Segregation was the
norm. It was the year of Chappaquiddick . In many states, women could not have a credit
card in their own name and a pregnant teacher was forced to quit when she began
to show. Richard Nixon took the oath of
office, and a few days later, perhaps coincidentally, the President’s salary
doubled. We were still enmeshed in Viet
Nam and the draft lottery commenced. The
Stonewall riots took place in New York.
The Manson family murdered Susan Tate.
In most public schools, girls were required to wear dresses and boys
were required to wear dress pants.
Tennis shoes were only for gym class.
So not everything was as rosy and peachy as nostalgic memories
can paint them to be. We have come a
long way in 50 years. We can probably
all agree that we have a long way to go before we can declare the US a
Would requiring prayer in our public schools change that?
Public schools are different than private schools. They are funded through public monies, and
they are designed to be more inclusive than private schools, more diverse. When
I was an administrator of a parochial school, I could say, “I’m sorry, we
cannot serve your child best in this school” and send kids and families
away if they did not want to conform to our religious beliefs or rules. On the
other hand, in public schools children from all families are welcomed. That means that any given public school could
serve students and families who are all denominations of Christian, Jewish,
Muslim, Buddhist, followers of Shintoism, Hindu, so on and so forth.
I mention “all denominations of Christians” because I find that
the majority of people who post this particular call for prayer in the schools
describe themselves as Christians. Yet
there are many, many different kinds of Christians. Each of those denominations were formed
because a group did not agree with a particular version of Christianity. Within those denominations there are
disagreements about which way to say the Lord’s prayer, how to be baptized, and
even which day is the day God intended for community worship.
If one believes this country is or should be declared Christian,
which of the above versions of Christianity do you think should be the basis of
prayer in schools? Do you think you and
all of the members of your community would agree?
Even our Founding Fathers did not share a common religion or
even a common version of Christianity.
We are a country that has prospered on diversity and by protecting
that diversity. Those who disagee often argue that the country was founded by
the Pilgrims. That is not completely
accurate. There were other colonies in
North America before the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. There were French and Spanish Catholics. There were other English colonies who
practiced Christianity based on the Church of England. Remember, the Pilgrims wound up on this
continent after they had sought religious freedom in Britain and the
Netherlands. Others seeking religious
freedom followed, including William Penn who was a Quaker. The colony he founded was based on religious
freedom. And let’s not forget that the
people indigenous to the continent had their own beliefs.
As the various colonies came together to form a nation, we took
steps to not just declare ourselves independent but also that we do not force
anyone to believe a certain thing. That
statement is in our Constitution, in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to
the Constitution is very clear. It says: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
If we believe in our democracy and in our Constitution, then we
believe that no one should be forced to attend a school that promotes a
religion in which we do not believe, and we believe that we must uphold the
rights our Founders held most dear including the Constitution’s First Amendment.
Please note, it is the FIRST amendment,
so it was the one that the Founders believed came first.
It is my experience that many who call for a return to prayer in
public schools believe themselves to be fervent supporters of the foundational
beliefs of our nation. The First
Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the
states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15,
1791. It is the bedrock, the foundation
of our democracy, our republic. If one
defines oneself as a patriot, then one must defend that First Amendment.
So let’s celebrate the fact that we can teach our children about our own, dearly held religious beliefs at home or in a private school with others who have the same beliefs, and that our public schools allow our children to experience the richness of the diversity our country allows and enjoys, a diversity that is not so celebrated in other countries or in other times.
If you do a web search for “classroom management” you will get a lot of posts about classroom rules. This reflects a common misconception about managing a classroom: if you have enough good rules, the class will be managed.
I beg to differ.
Rules are about discipline, not about management. Management is structuring the classroom and
the class in a way that ensures learning will take place and maximizing the
amount of time for learning. Discipline
is something else.
A google search shows the definition of “discipline” is “the practice
of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to
correct disobedience.” So
classroom rules fall in the category of discipline.
I’ve said many times that I would rather work in a school
that had a lot of procedures and no rules than in a school with a lot of rules
and no procedures. Why? Rules do not guarantee that students will do
what the rule says.
An analogy might be the speed limit. There are rules, laws, that govern how fast
one can drive a car in a particular area, but most people tend to drive faster
than the speed limit. They are breaking
the law, or not following the rule. I
include myself in that group of rule-breakers.
I travel about 6 miles an hour above the posted speed limit figuring the
police won’t bother with me where there are others who are going much
Everyone who is exceeding the speed limit knows they are
breaking the law, but they do it anyway.
Why? Pretty much for the same
reason I do it: we figure we won’t get
caught, and even if the police see us, they won’t do anything about it.
The same is usually true for students in school. Just because there is a rule that says to do
a certain thing doesn’t mean the student won’t do that thing. They are likely to do that thing hoping they
won’t get caught. This casts the teacher
in the role of behavior police, watching students for infractions of the rules
and punishing them when they inevitably get caught.
What does this do to teachers and students?
teachers as the enemy. Okay, “enemy” is probably too strong a word. Instead, think “them and us”. Students learn that teachers are in the “them”
or “other” group and his/her peers are in the “us” group of fellow
We’ve known for a long time that student-teacher
relationships are of paramount importance.
Students will do a lot of things for a teacher who they believe likes
them than for a teacher they view as disliking them or even being indifferent
When a teacher’s “classroom management plan” is all about
rules then relationships have little to do with whether or not the student will
do what the teacher asks. Now the stage
has been set for a game of “catch me if you can”. The student see that what s/he or his peers
are doing is fun and the teacher is there to prevent them from having that fun.
Fred Jones observed “zones of proximity” in the classroom. Students who are closest to the teacher are in the “red zone” meaning their negative behavior will likely cease. Students a little further away from the teachers are in the “yellow zone” meaning they will proceed with a particular behavior with caution. Students in the “green zone”, farthest from the teacher, have a green light to go ahead with whatever behavior because the teacher is likely too far away from the teacher for him/her to see the negative behaviors.
These “zones of proximity” are used as the reason teachers
should continuously more around the room.
However, what happens if the teacher is working with a small reading
group and other students are supposed to be involved with station work? The teacher cannot move around the room and continue to work with the
reading group. If students have learned
that the teacher’s proximity is the reason why s/he is to “behave”, then it is
likely that s/he will engage in proscribed behavior when s/he is at a station
and not working directly with the teacher.
Harry and Rosemary Wong characterize rules as a dare. I know of few students who will walk away
from a dare!
learn to be more sneaky. As a result of the previous point, students learn to hide
For example, back in the dark ages when I was in high school,
we had a school rule against passing notes.
Remember, this was before cell phones or even personal computers, so
writing notes was a way to communicate with your friends under the teachers’
noses. My friends and I probably watched
too many spy shows on TV, and we devised many ways to pass notes so that the
teacher would never know. My favorite
way was to roll up the note and put it into the barrel of a ballpoint pen after
I’d removed the ink cartridge. I don’t
recall ever having a note intercepted by a teacher when I used that method!
Being told we couldn’t pass notes didn’t result in us not passing
notes. We just found more and more
clever ways to pass them.
I think every teacher has had that student who, when
confronted with breaking a rule, turns on an Oscar-quality performance, telling
us that they did no such thing. You’ve
probably also had the student who can seem to turn the tears on and off at
will, and who look at you with those big eyes brimming with tears begging us to
overlook this egregious behavior “just this once”. In my opinion, this is just another way of
being sneaky about things. These
students have learned that if they are caught, they should prevaricate.
do what they don’t know how to do. For any desired behavior to actually happen, students have to
be developmentally capable of it and they have to have been taught how to do
For example, just saying “respect the teacher” doesn’t mean
the child knows how to do that. S/he may
actually like the teacher very much, but the way s/he knows how to show that
may be a long way off from what the teacher wants to see.
An example of this happened to a speech-language therapist working with kindergarten children. Ms. X was seated on one of the tiny chairs and working with a small group of children, holding a conversation with them while in the regular classroom. One of the girls in the class came up behind Ms. X, reached around her and squeezed both of Ms. X’s breasts saying, “honk, honk!” Ms. X gently took the girls hands and pulled her around to face her. “No, we don’t do that to ladies,” she said. The little girl’s face crumpled, “But Daddy does that to Mommy all the time, and she likes it!” Ms. X staggered into my office, laughing so hard she could barely walk, to share that story with me. After laughing myself, I wound up having to call the child’s parents to suggest the adults be cognizant of how children soak up things like a sponge, and that children do not have filters about what is okay for some and not okay for others.
While this story is funny, it illustrates my case in
point: children do not always know what
we mean by rules and sometimes they have learned a different way of doing
something than what we had in mind. Many
teachers have a rule about “respect.”
Yet signs of respect differ by family and by culture. What the teacher means by respect may be
entirely different than what the child has learned about respect.
I remember all too well asking a child if they were allowed
to walk on the furniture at home. He
looked at me with what appeared to be sincere confusion and said, “Yes.”
Children have to be taught how to follow certain rules. Just telling them isn’t enough. Just as we have to do with procedures, many
children must be taught, have the opportunity to practice, and have their
efforts reinforced before they can follow a particular rule.
do what they are not able to do.
Rules are sometimes things children are not capable of doing.
One aspect of this is developmental. Asking a kindergartener to sit still is not
practical. A five year old’s concept of
sitting still is to squirm and wiggle and tap and twist and tie themselves into
knots. Expecting something different is like
trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
It isn’t going to happen.
Expecting a teenager to sit up straight is a terrific
goal. We adults know that they will be
healthier in the long run and feel better in the short run. But teenagers slump. It is the nature of the beast. Having a rule that says “sit up straight”
doesn’t make sense when it is so very difficult for a teenager to comply.
Another aspect has to do with who the rule is really
for. A first grader is not usually
responsible for setting an alarm, getting up when the alarm goes off, getting
his/her clothes on and hair combed, etc.
It is an adult’s responsibility for that to happen. The rule says that students are not to be tardy
to school, but punishing the child doesn’t make sense. It is not his/her fault if the parent
oversleeps or has a flexible interpretation of “on time”. On the other hand, a high school student is
much more capable of all of the above, and it makes sense to hold him/her
accountable for being to school on time.
focus on the negative. Probably the most damaging aspect of focusing on rules has to
do with the teacher’s attitude.
I’ve written many times about the power of a teacher’s
attitude and beliefs. If a teacher
believes something about a student, even if the teacher never vocalizes that
belief, and even if the teacher consciously believes s/he is treating everyone the
same, the teacher will subconsciously act on that belief by treating some
If the teacher is focused on whether or not students follow
rules, s/he will most likely watch for students who are breaking the rules
rather than noticing those who are following the rules. It may be an unusual thing for Susie
Creamcheese to misbehave and the teacher noticing her disobedience will likely
keep Susie in check. However, THAT
student already has a reputation for being out of line. If the teacher is focused on seeing who is
violating the rules, s/he will notice THAT student more often than not.
THAT student may have learned that any attention is better
than no attention, but that is not what we really want the students to
What do we want students to learn about rules and
behavior? Most of us want students to
learn how to self-regulate, to have self-discipline, and to do the right thing
even when no one is watching. Rules don’t
teach that. In fact, rules themselves do
not teach. It is the teacher – or parent,
or peer – who teaches about behavior.
Rules are a tool teachers can use to draw a line in the sand that says “this
I will tolerate in this classroom and this I will not tolerate”. Rules allow a teacher to enforce behavioral
expectations with negative consequences or punishments. But rules only work a little bit, and may
instead be elicit the responses outlined above.
I challenge you to consider what it is that you are trying to
accomplish with the rules you’ve selected for your classroom. Are any of the rules you have making you the
enemy in students’ eyes? Are they making
students better at hiding misbehavior?
Are the students able to follow the rules? Are you so busy watching for students
breaking the rules that you aren’t able to see the good things they are
Make a few notes about these thoughts so you don’t forget
them. We’ll come back to those ideas in
the weeks ahead.
Look for more about Roe’s Rules for Rules in upcoming posts.
Most of us learned a little about children with Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in
college. For example, I learned that
kids with ADHD couldn’t stop moving and would fidget and squirm in their seats
and could not concentrate on anything longer than a few seconds. My professors told me that these children
would calm down when given an amphetamine like Retiling, while those who did
not have this disorder would “speed up”.
I was taught that the best place
in the classroom for this student was right up front, next to the teacher. The idea was that if he was sitting there, he
would know the teacher had her eye on him and he would control his behavior. And I was taught that setting up a system of
negative consequences and rewards would get him/her to control his/her behavior
once and for all. Further, I learned
from various sources that ADHD is a “made up” disorder and that what looks like
ADHD is really the result of bad parenting or inappropriate school curriculum.
Does this sound familiar to you? What if I told you that all of the above were
Myth 1: ADD and ADHD
are “made up” disorders.
The truth is that these are both recognized mental and physical
conditions. People with ADD or ADHD have
meaningful differences in their brains, how they process information, and their
impulse control. ADD and ADHD are neurological
disorders that have been around for a very long time, but were not recognized
as a particular health issue until the last 50 or 60 years. Even then there were some who labeled children
with symptoms of the disorder as “lazy”, “stupid”, “incapable of learning”, etc.
Myth 2: Children with
ADD or ADHD are lazy, stupid, or just plain bad.
It is estimated that the majority of children with ADD or ADHD are above
average in intelligence. They sometimes
appear less capable because the work they are asked to do does not hold their
attention, or because they are wiggling and squirming when the teacher wants
them to pay attention. They sometimes
get the label “lazy” because they do not do school work for a variety of
reasons or lose it before they can turn it in. And ADD/ADHD is not a character flaw. It is a neurological disorder.
Myth 3: If a child
has ADD or ADHD, s/he just needs to take medication.
First of all, the “test” of ADD or ADHD is not whether or not the child
responds to amphetamines in a particular way is outdated. Doctors who specialize in ADD and ADHD have
much more sophisticated ways of determining whether or not the child has the syndrome.
Second, medication works for some children, but not for
all. Some children cannot tolerate the
medication, meaning the side effects are dangerous. For some, those side effects can include an
inability to eat, an inability to sleep, increased blood pressure, nervousness,
increased irritability when the medication wears off, headaches and stomachaches,
moodiness, and overall increased irritability.
The result is that not every person can tolerate the various medications
that are used for ADD or ADHD. And the
medication has little to no effect on some.
Third, sadly, our schools cannot control all of the bullying
that takes place. Children who must go
to the nurse at particular times of the day to get medication are often the
butt of bullying behavior. Some of the
language of that bullying has crept into our everyday language: “take a chill pill” or “did you forget your
meds today”. This is a reason why some
families choose to not medicate their children.
Myth 4: ADD or ADHD
is the result of bad parenting.
Parents can do everything completely right and still have a child who struggles
with his/her ADD or ADHD. Yes, there are
parents who let their children “get away with murder”, and there are parents
who are too strict with their ADHD children, but the syndrome is neurological,
not the result of childhood conditioning.
However, it is true that having a child with ADD/ADHD can
get to a parent’s last nerve. It can put
an enormous strain on the family and can result in parents trying every which
way to cope with their child. This can
result in being too harsh, too indulgent, and even in seeking “cures” from both
good and fraudulent sources.
I recall one family that would bundle their child off to the
doctor every time they received a negative phone call. They would ask the doctor to give the child
different medication each time.
Sometimes this happened a couple of times in a single week. The parents believed that medication would
create a cure instead of making controlling behavior a little bit easier. It certainly did not help the child.
Parents who are caught up in trying desperately to find a
way to cope with their “atypical” child really need help from the school rather
than blame. Telling the parent whenever
the child has done something the teacher finds unacceptable puts further strain
on the family. Many, if not most,
parents experience that as blaming the parents and they can respond with guilt,
anger, or frustration. That, in turn,
can alienate parents from the school, and make them believe that the school,
and the teacher are “out to get” their child.
What parents really need is to hear when the child does
something good. If the teacher has not
started the year out this way, it make take some serious effort to look for and
find good things to tell families about THAT student, but the rewards are
Myth 5: A child with
ADD or ADHD needs parents and teachers willing to use strict behavior
Behavior modification is when a person receives negative consequences when s/he
chooses to do something like act out, and receives rewards when s/he chooses to
do something “right”. The problem with
this approach with children with ADD or ADHD is that word “choose.” ADD and ADHD are neurological disorders, not
the result of choice. Some children may
benefit from some negative consequences, but the majority do not. After all, if one cannot choose to have one’s
brain respond in certain ways, how will a detention or a phone call home
(common negative consequences) help? If
one cannot choose how one’s brain responds, how will a trip to the “treasure
chest” or a sticker (common rewards) help?
The use of this kind of behavior management system may help
in the short term, but it does not help in the long run. Many with ADD or ADHD have said that they
could never get a reward, that they tried their very hardest but they were only
punished over and over again. The result
of this is often that the child learns to hate school, to believe the teacher
is out to get him. It can also
backfire. Some students over time become
willing to accept negative consequences as a badge of honor.
What many of us learned in college, to have the child sit up
front and next to the teacher comes out of this thinking. However, many classrooms do not have a “front”
and a good classroom manager is not going to remain in the front of the
classroom or at his/her desk. Putting a
child with ADD/ADHD up front can have a negative effect on the whole classroom
because it puts the child and his/her behavior where everyone can see it. This can break down the child’s relationships
I abandoned this strategy after having a class that
consistently pointed out what the child with ADHD was doing: “Ms. Roe!
He’s doing it again!” I finally
realized I was the grown up in the room and that I was much more capable of
ignoring fidgeting, squirming, and seat dancing to an imaginary tune better
than the children. I moved that child to
the back corner where fewer of his peers would see what he was doing. I also resolved to allow him to do all of those
“hyper” behaviors unless he was disrupting the class. Life became so much better for me and for that
What the children need to learn most is a set of strategies
s/he can use to cope with the demands of school, and to reach his/her learning
Myth 6: It’s not
ADD/ADHD if the child can pay attention to something and not to others.
Many with ADD/ADHD demonstrate a behavior called “hyperfocus”. This means that s/he is so fixated on a particular
thing that is it is difficult to change to another behavior. With my son, it was electronic screens –
video games or computer screens. He used
to describe it as being sucked into the screen.
To change his focus, I would have to literally get between him and the
screen. Like many with ADD/ADHD changing
that focus was difficult and often resulted in angry behavior.
We see this in the classroom when a child does not respond
well to changing activities. She may
continue to work on that math problem even after being told to put math away
and get out the science book. He may
whine or act out when told it is time to stop one thing and start another. Children with ADD/ADHD often benefit from
having a quiet timer set up so that they can see how much time is left for an
activity, or by the teacher telling the class, “We will be cleaning up in 5
minutes so start getting yourself to a stopping place.”
Children with ADD/ADHD also tend to perseverate. That means they will continue to do or say
something even after the time for that behavior has passed. For example, the child may repeat a word over
and over again, or look for a lost paper in only one or two places because the
paper should be in one of those two spots even though it is not in either of
those locations. Sometimes this can look
like OCD behavior. That can be alarming
for a teacher the first time they realize that it is perseveration, but please
remember to use compassion – the kid just really cannot help it.
Myth 7: ADD/ADHD is
really the result of a poor curriculum.
Teachers are not really in charge of curriculum. They are hired to teach the district’s
curriculum. But, if you are a teacher,
you already know that. I think maybe the
people who say that mean “teaching strategies” rather than “curriculum”.
There may be some truth to the idea that there are some
teaching strategies that are better for kids with ADD/ADHD. Lecture classes, or classes where students
are expected to “sit and get” are probably less suited to them. However, there is a good argument to say that
those type of classes are not good for most students.
My advice is to remember this “Roe’s Rule”: The
person who does the most work is the person doing the most learning. That is, if the teacher is doing the most
work, then the students are not doing the most learning. Instead, creating lessons where students do
the work is most likely to result in them learning the most. For example, when I was teaching, the state
said every eighth grader was to have a course in Indigenous People in the
state. The social studies teacher
complained that she wouldn’t have time to teach everything else if she had to
teach all of the “stuff” the state said the kids had to learn about Indigenous
People. I suggested that she form the
class up into groups and have each group learn about a particular group, then
teach the rest of the class what they learned.
That could be done in several different ways including a Jig Saw method.
There are many myths about people with ADD/ADHD. We educators need to keep learning about this and other conditions that make a student different from the so-called typical student. As a nation, we tend to pride ourselves on all being individuals, so shouldn’t we look at each of the students in our class as individuals? Equity doesn’t mean treating everyone the same. It means treating each in the way they need most.
A study released in May 2018 showed that the inclusion of
students with intellectual disabilities is “lagging” (Heasley, 2018). The study examined trends in having such
students taught in regular education classes since the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) passed in 1976 through 2014. IDEA requires that students with disabilities
be placed in the “least restrictive environment”, meaning that they should be
placed in a regular education classroom as much as possible.
I’ve read several
articles about this study and I’ve found that there seems to be some confusion
about what the term “intellectual disability” means. I won’t go into a complete definition here
but the term is generally used to describe students
who have problems with general mental abilities that affect functioning in two
areas: intellectual functioning (such as
learning, problem solving, judgement) and adaptive functioning (activities of
daily life such as communication and independent living). Some of the articles included students with
ADHD, receptive and expressive language issues, those with poor social skills,
got me to thinking about teachers and special education inclusion.
not think there are any teachers who believe that inclusion is bad for
students. The majority would say that
inclusion has real, tangible benefits both for the student with special needs
and for the general population of PK-12 students. On the other hand, there are many teachers
who believe that they are not the best person to work with special needs
students. A person outside of education,
would, I think be unlikely to understand why that is, and would probably cast
those teachers in a negative light.
teachers take a course or two about special needs students. At the college where I taught, this class was
a 100 level class meaning it was generally taken by freshmen. Another course in assessment was required for
elementary education majors; this course primarily focused on special education
assessment but was also supposed to include assessments teachers might use for “regular
taught an upper level course on classroom management and I found that, almost
without exception, these pre-service teachers had a limited view of special
education and almost no understanding of various behavioral issues that a
special education student might demonstrate.
To a student, none knew anything about specific behavior disorders.
not to condemn those who teach classes about exceptional learners. Not by a long shot! Understanding students with disabilities and
what it means to work with these students in the general education classroom is
simply too much for one, three credit hour class. In addition, in my experience, few freshmen
can fully grasp the topic. It is not
because freshmen are deficit in any way.
It is because they are usually quite young, 18-19 years old. They are usually away from home for the first
time and exploring how to be independent from their parents. In addition, college learning differs
significantly from PK-12 learning.
College students are expected to have the discipline to do most of the
educating on their own – for every hour of credit, the student is expected to
do two hours of work outside of what is happening in the classroom. In other words, the college student is
expected to be in charge of his/her learning whereas the high school teacher is
expected to “make” students learn.
a very difficult transition for many young people.
who major in special education may receive more specific training in working
with students with special needs, but those teachers are the ones destined for
the “special education classroom” and for collaborating with regular education
teachers who are working with special needs students.
don’t colleges require students to take more classes where they learn more
about working with special needs students?
looked at the requirements education majors must meet? Where I taught education majors, the list of classes
that met requirements for an elementary teacher meant that an elementary
education major could not take any electives unless s/he wanted to add a
semester or so onto his/her college time.
Few students want to do that. As
it is, elementary education majors often have to take 16 or 18 credit hours per
semester even though 12 credit hours per semester is considered full time.
college professionals recognize that education could easily become a 5 year
degree, or even a 6 year degree if courses and field experiences were added to
ensure that all of the education majors were adept at teaching their own
subjects and special education. I have
heard of only a handful of colleges that have made this a requirement. The thinking is that students will vote with
their feet, avoiding the 5 year programs in favor of those who say they can get
the student through the program in 4 years.
are many outside of education who believe that the regular education teacher
receives significant support from the special education teacher. The special education teacher is supposed to
help that regular education teacher find accommodations to use to help the
student with special needs meet the same expectations as the other students in
the classroom, and with modifications if the special education student is
expected to be held to a different standard.
Many believe the special education teacher will be working along side
the regular education teacher, co-teaching and collaborating. And, really, that’s the way it is supposed to
be! But how many sp. ed. teachers are
really able to do that?
an elementary sp. ed. teacher. States use
a number of plans to determine how many students a sp. ed. teacher has on her
caseload. There are students with whom
she simply consults with the regular education teacher, students who are
expected to have the teacher or another trained professional working with them
for a significant part of the day, and everything in between.
ed. teacher might have students in multiple classrooms who are supposed to be
receiving services from a “trained professional” at the same time. She has to create a schedule where she is in
this classroom for this amount of time, and that classroom for a different
amount of time. She has to have the time
during the day to meet with the general education teachers for
collaboration. She has to have time to
administer alternate assessments for some students, and assessments with
accommodations for other students. She
must write and update Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and report on
students’ progress to various people.
She must work with the parents of the students, too. And she is expected to direct
para-professionals on what to do with the students with whom they work.
probably not half of what most special education teachers have to accomplish.
districts hire aides or para-professionals to work with special education
students on a one-to-one basis. Many
districts pay only minimum wage to these aides and keep them under 30 hours per
week so that they are not considered full time and do not receive
benefits. As a result, few of the aides
can truly be considered “trained professionals”. Some states require special education aides
to receive training, but this training varies.
It could be an online overview of special education, or it could be a
few hours of face-to-face instruction through a college, tech school, or
district led inservice training. Few
states require special education aides to have a baccalaureate, and few states
require aids to receive a salary commensurate with that level of training.
short, most sp. ed. teachers wish they could be cloned so that there was enough
of them to go around.
this means for the general education teacher is that s/he is expected to
accommodate or modify lessons for the special needs students assigned to them, find
alternative materials as needed, work with the students developing social
skills, helping the students change negative behaviors, etc.
sure there are many, many regular education teachers who are delivering
fantastic services to special needs students!
My point is that those wonderful regular education teachers often have
to figure out how to do all of that often based on what they were supposed to
have learned in one or two college classes.
school districts try to “fix” the problem by integrating students with IEPs
into “specials” like art, music, and physical education. I used to be an art teacher, and I used to be
a special education teacher. My training
as an art teacher did little to help me understand how to accommodate or modify
art activities for special education students.
Special subject teachers in general receive no more training in working
with special needs students than any other “regular” teacher.
special educator, I worked primarily with students with behavior disorders (BD). Out of that experience, I’ve seen that it is
very difficult for a regular education teacher to work with a BD student and
assure that the other students in the class are learning. By definition, BD students have problems with
their behavior and can disrupt a regular education class regularly. Regular education teachers can become
frustrated and resentful if they are expected to work with a BD student without
intensive support. That frustration and
resentment is communicated to the students in very subtle ways, even when the
teacher truly does not want to project that.
(See the blog posts about teacher attitude.) I found it was to the BD student’s benefit to
keep him/her in a special education classroom where we could work intensely on
his/her behavior, and to slowly integrate the student into regular
takes a teacher with super powers to provide for everything a special needs
student needs to be successful academically!
is off to those teachers and paraprofessionals who are working hard to provide
the best educational opportunities for both the “regular” and the “special”
opinion, that is why so many students with IEPs are served in classrooms separate
from their general education peers. It
is not ideal. It is not the intent of
that is why, in my opinion, why we do not see an 80% or better inclusion rate.
really want special education students to be included in the regular classroom
80% of the day or more, we need to provide supports for both the students and
the teachers. We need more special
education teachers and more training for regular education teachers. And most teachers would say they also need
fewer students – smaller class sizes or caseloads.
I suspect that the student mentioned at the beginning will spur state agencies
and local school districts to boost the number of students in the regular
education classroom. I also suspect that
there will be no requirement for additional training for teachers or paras.
are a special education teacher, please have some compassion and empathy for
the regular education teacher. Help
him/her develop effective accommodations and modifications.
are a regular education teacher, work as closely as you can with the special
education teacher and recognize that s/he is probably doing the best s/he can
with all of the things s/he is expected to do.
encourage all teachers to request more training in working with special needs
students, and I encourage all teachers to seek out more information themselves. Advocate for the students by advocating for
more support and training for all of the adults who work with special needs
kids. Remember: being positive about what you do, tends to
get more results that telling people how bad your day is! We catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
kids deserve it and so do you!
your advocacy a step further: let your
local school board know what you must do each day and how you do it. Do this in a positive, informational
way. Help state and federal
representatives know how the legal expectations for special needs children play
out in the classroom.
everyone know what the good things are that go on in your classroom and how
students benefit from your dedication to the education all students.
I hope I can do you a service by suggesting ways to work with THAT student in your classroom!
Sometimes giving back is the greatest gift and one that
helps students understand basic needs better.
In several schools in which I worked, we would plan to give
personal hygiene and car products to the local women’s shelter or the homeless
shelter in the area.
Here is how we did it:
Each grade level would decide on an item to contribute. The grade would brainstorm some ways of
raising money so that each student would be able to contribute one of the
selected items. The teachers would ask
parents to contribute one of the selected items in the name of the child in the
grade if they were able to do so.
Families that could, contributed more than one item. Families that could not were covered by the
The items we collected were:
If we had additional grades in the building, the following
could be collected”
The teachers would compose a short note to the intended
recipients to be included in the package and would contribute boxes of Ziploc bags. I suspect that some of the disposable plastic
containers would work well, too.
When the items were collected, the older grades would help
sort the items into plastic zip closure bags.
We’d set it all up like an assembly line. Each student would take a plastic bag and
then put one of each item into the bag, zip it closed (often with the help of
an adult) and then drop it into a box.
We did a variation on this project for victims of a tornado
one year. Each grade made a Christmas
ornament – you know, the ones that are often made by elementary children, the
ones moms and grandparents cherish.
Those are often lost in a catastrophic event like a tornado. We made a package containing one of each kind
of ornament and, by contacting local churches, send a package to each family
who had lost the most. We received many
phone calls and letters from families who told us that the ornaments helped
them remember the ones their children had made and that had been lost.
When teaching at the university level, two of my students
spearheaded a project for a capstone class they were required to take. They contacted local organizations and
businesses and put together backpacks with various items in them for foster
children. Foster children may wind up
moving to a new home or environment at a moment’s notice and often are not able
to take much if anything along.
Has your school done anything like this? Share your story!