INQUIRY INTO RELATIONSHIP AND COMMUNITY BUILDING
This week, I witnessed evidence that a “loud” class does not automatically equal an “out-of-control” class. The activity was a physicalization of a passage from The Taming of the Shrew. Students were given four lines in which Petruchio tries to woo Kate by making flattering comments that he (and we, the audience) know not to be true. Students were split up in to groups and asked to come up with a motion for each word in the passage (for example, “you” might be captured by a pointing-forward motion, and “faith” might be a gesture resembling praying). This provided a way for students to explore the meaning behind Shakespeare’s language, such as in this conversation I overheard:
Student A: “What does bonny mean?”
Student B: “Like good or pretty.”
Student A: “Oh! So we can go like this!”
As I wandered around, I expected some students to be talking about something other than the assigned task, but they weren’t. The engagement was palpable - and the volume of the class got so high that the math teacher next door came over to ask us to keep it down. In relaying this request to the class, Mrs. Garrison framed it in a positive way that seemed to send the message that she was “on their side” (“Ladies and gentlemen, you are doing such a good job that the math students next door can’t hear. So keep doing what you’re doing, but try whispering”). Once the students had come up with their motions and practiced, some of the groups performed them for the class. Afterwards, she addressed the class, saying, “You have blown me away,” to which one of the talkative girls responded, “Aw, Mrs. Garrison, don’t cry.” “I’ll try not to,” she said. Observing this, I couldn’t help thinking that it was a prime example of effective relationship and community building. We did the same lesson in both our Period 2 (advanced, non-magnet) and our Period 3 (magnet) classes, and I’m interested in the contrast between these classes, both with this activity in particular and in general.
This week, I also looked at the Student Information System (SIS), an online database of teacher rosters and student schedules. Among other information, this database includes information on students’ disciplinary histories. If a student has received detentions, there is an icon of a person in jail next to his/her name, as well as the number of cumulative detentions (example: “x2”) Similarly, if the student has gotten any pink slips, there is a pink slip icon and number. If you click on the student’s name, there is more information about disciplinary infractions (dates, reasons, teacher who referred them, consequences).
I was not surprised that more Period 2 students (non-magnet) have received discipline referrals than Period 3 students (magnet). As a whole, Period 2 tends to be more outgoing, while Period 3 seems to be well-programmed to adhere to certain behavioral standards that reflect dominant-culture norms. Indeed, some of the behavior exhibited by Period 2 students could be considered “bad” - certainly, some of these behaviors could lead to other behaviors that are less ambiguously bad. But as I get to know these classes, I’m noticing that some of the biggest "disciplinary cases" are also the most eager class participants. Whether the student becomes a disciplinary case or a valuable contributor to class seems to depend on the teacher’s approach to the student. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd conjecture that if the teacher, as Mrs. Garrison has so far, provides a productive, structured outlet for their energy that satisfies whatever need for attention they may have, then the level of involvement for these students goes up, and the level of inappropriate behavior goes down.
While I was perusing the SIS, I noticed that certain teachers came up a lot as referring students for disciplinary action. This made me wonder about how being “trigger happy” in terms of giving out detentions and pink slips might lead to an antagonistic relationship, which could add to the discipline problem, rather than remedying it. It seems to be something of a chicken-egg question, as I imagine it can sometimes be hard to determine which comes first: the student’s “defiant” attitude or the teacher’s perceived “disciplinarian” stance. If we send the message to students that we expect them to misbehave, it seems more likely that they will. If, on the other hand, we show them that we trust them and believe in them, they may be more inclined to be invested in the class and stay on task.
One of the comments that jumped out at me from the SIS was in regards to one of the girls in Period 2: “Use of profanity and came to class wearing outer wear. When I mentioned the dirty look she was making she stated that she can make whatever face she wants.” It is the last sentence that is most troubling for me. The reason I have trouble with “the dirty look” she was making is that I know that this girl has a condition of some sort that results in a “cross-eye” or “lazy eye” expression. I myself sometimes have trouble deciphering her expression, but I realize that it is, at least to some extent, “just her face.” As such, I can imagine this might be something she is self-conscious about, and it is understandable that she might react less than politely to a teacher accusing her of intentionally making a dirty look. It is cases like this that lead me to wonder to what extent teachers try to understand perceived misbehaviors from students, and what, if any, other approaches they might exhaust before referring students for disciplinary action.
Student A: “What does bonny mean?”
Student B: “Like good or pretty.”
Student A: “Oh! So we can go like this!”
As I wandered around, I expected some students to be talking about something other than the assigned task, but they weren’t. The engagement was palpable - and the volume of the class got so high that the math teacher next door came over to ask us to keep it down. In relaying this request to the class, Mrs. Garrison framed it in a positive way that seemed to send the message that she was “on their side” (“Ladies and gentlemen, you are doing such a good job that the math students next door can’t hear. So keep doing what you’re doing, but try whispering”). Once the students had come up with their motions and practiced, some of the groups performed them for the class. Afterwards, she addressed the class, saying, “You have blown me away,” to which one of the talkative girls responded, “Aw, Mrs. Garrison, don’t cry.” “I’ll try not to,” she said. Observing this, I couldn’t help thinking that it was a prime example of effective relationship and community building. We did the same lesson in both our Period 2 (advanced, non-magnet) and our Period 3 (magnet) classes, and I’m interested in the contrast between these classes, both with this activity in particular and in general.
This week, I also looked at the Student Information System (SIS), an online database of teacher rosters and student schedules. Among other information, this database includes information on students’ disciplinary histories. If a student has received detentions, there is an icon of a person in jail next to his/her name, as well as the number of cumulative detentions (example: “x2”) Similarly, if the student has gotten any pink slips, there is a pink slip icon and number. If you click on the student’s name, there is more information about disciplinary infractions (dates, reasons, teacher who referred them, consequences).
I was not surprised that more Period 2 students (non-magnet) have received discipline referrals than Period 3 students (magnet). As a whole, Period 2 tends to be more outgoing, while Period 3 seems to be well-programmed to adhere to certain behavioral standards that reflect dominant-culture norms. Indeed, some of the behavior exhibited by Period 2 students could be considered “bad” - certainly, some of these behaviors could lead to other behaviors that are less ambiguously bad. But as I get to know these classes, I’m noticing that some of the biggest "disciplinary cases" are also the most eager class participants. Whether the student becomes a disciplinary case or a valuable contributor to class seems to depend on the teacher’s approach to the student. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd conjecture that if the teacher, as Mrs. Garrison has so far, provides a productive, structured outlet for their energy that satisfies whatever need for attention they may have, then the level of involvement for these students goes up, and the level of inappropriate behavior goes down.
While I was perusing the SIS, I noticed that certain teachers came up a lot as referring students for disciplinary action. This made me wonder about how being “trigger happy” in terms of giving out detentions and pink slips might lead to an antagonistic relationship, which could add to the discipline problem, rather than remedying it. It seems to be something of a chicken-egg question, as I imagine it can sometimes be hard to determine which comes first: the student’s “defiant” attitude or the teacher’s perceived “disciplinarian” stance. If we send the message to students that we expect them to misbehave, it seems more likely that they will. If, on the other hand, we show them that we trust them and believe in them, they may be more inclined to be invested in the class and stay on task.
One of the comments that jumped out at me from the SIS was in regards to one of the girls in Period 2: “Use of profanity and came to class wearing outer wear. When I mentioned the dirty look she was making she stated that she can make whatever face she wants.” It is the last sentence that is most troubling for me. The reason I have trouble with “the dirty look” she was making is that I know that this girl has a condition of some sort that results in a “cross-eye” or “lazy eye” expression. I myself sometimes have trouble deciphering her expression, but I realize that it is, at least to some extent, “just her face.” As such, I can imagine this might be something she is self-conscious about, and it is understandable that she might react less than politely to a teacher accusing her of intentionally making a dirty look. It is cases like this that lead me to wonder to what extent teachers try to understand perceived misbehaviors from students, and what, if any, other approaches they might exhaust before referring students for disciplinary action.