Copyright 2000 P.G. Publishing Co.
Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette
March 26, 2000, Sunday, TWO STAR EDITION
SECTION: FORUM, Pg. E-1
LENGTH: 1294 words
HEADLINE:
SAFE SCHOOLS: PRIORITY NO. 1
BYLINE: ALBERT FONDY
BODY:
Safety, discipline and support for
teachers, says Albert Fondy, is the most pressing need in education today
In a Woodland Hills middle school, a substitute teacher uses pepper
spray to help quell a serious disturbance among some students. In a Michigan
elementary school, tragedy strikes when a 6-year-old takes a gun and kills a
little girl in a first-grade class. Disruptive and often anti-social conduct,
abusive language, belligerent and defiant behavior, threats, intimidation,
bullying and extortion, fights among students, girls as well as boys, substance
abuse, weapons violations, actual assaults on students and teachers alike and,
occasionally, outright deadly violence -- these are most of the serious,
behavior-related obstacles to their students' learning that teachers confront
somewhere, in some school, each day.
Such matters must concern every
responsible citizen in our society. Certainly all parents of school children are
concerned -- whether their children are in urban schools, suburban schools,
rural schools, schools in affluent areas or schools in economically distressed
communities. Private and religious schools are not immune from these problems
either. Nor are the Pittsburgh Public Schools. Such problems and occurrences are
not the rule, to be sure. But they don't have to be in order for the education
of the vast majority of children in a classroom, or sometimes in an entire
school, when they occur, to be compromised and even undermined. Something
clearly has to be done.
*
The fundamental school discipline and
safety axiom is: "No teacher can teach and no student can learn in an atmosphere
of distraction and disruption, and certainly not when confronted by outright
disorder and an unsafe environment."
Every classroom teacher lives each
day with this reality. School principals understand this axiom. Parents
themselves act under this axiom every time they enroll their children in a
school or evaluate a school's operation and performance with respect to their
children.
Discipline and safety underlie all school improvement efforts.
In the public schools, we are, and we should be, pursuing accelerated learning
standards for students, assessments (tests) aligned to the curriculum, stronger
certification standards for teachers, continuing professional development for
teachers and all professionals, the most advanced and research-based methods for
teaching all students to read, maximum utilization of technology in classrooms
and schools -- you name it.
But if a teacher can't be assured that he or
she will be able to provide a structured and consistently positive classroom
environment -- and be supported in doing so -- then all of the education
rhetoric and learning goals will remain just that: rhetoric and goals.
The job of both the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers and the
Pennsylvania State Education Association is to convince the governor and the
education secretary that school safety and discipline are where public schools
need their undivided attention and committed emphasis. The state Legislature can
best act if the governor is leading the way on safety and discipline. He has not
done so -- not in terms of safety and discipline initiatives and clearly not in
terms of their funding.
The governor, and those who think as he seems to
think, have mainly argued that if a school doesn't succeed to the degree that it
should, then some (a few) students should be able to enroll elsewhere, including
in voucher-supported private and religious schools. If the reason that too many
students in some public school are having trouble learning is because teaching
and learning in that school are constantly being disrupted, then the disruptions
are what have to be eliminated.
The school has to be made orderly, safe
and secure -- for all of its students.
Children who prevent other
children from learning require alternate placements and specialized education
settings. They need strong supervision and consistent discipline. They need
focused help so that they can learn. They need to develop the ability to
function in a social environment. Everybody realizes all of this, but little is
done about it.
The only "advantage" that the private and religious
schools have over public schools is that the private and religious schools can
simply refuse to admit a student in the first place or can remove a disruptive
or difficult student at their sole discretion. They are able to do so because
the public schools serve as their alternative schools.
In the public
schools, we have no such alternative-school recourse. But that's what we need.
That's where the vast majority of public school students and their parents need
-- the assurance that public schools, teachers and students do not have to
tolerate, much less live with, unacceptable barriers to teaching and learning.
An alternative school for exceptionally difficult youngsters could be a
public school, including a regional public school. But it could also be an
approved private school, just like the approved, publicly funded private schools
that have served the needs of specific special education children for some 50
years in Pittsburgh. This is also one area where a charter school, too, could
make sense -- a charter school set up to handle the toughest and most difficult
youngsters, not a charter school that creams off the better students and the
students whose parents are actively involved in their children's education.
The exceptional difficulties involving the disciplining of special
education children are another impediment to maximizing the ability of public
school to maintain a safe and productive learning climate for all students.
Pennsylvania actually restricts the latitude for enforcing legitimate
codes of conduct with special education students to a greater degree than does
the reauthorization of the federal Individual Disability Education
Act. Here again, relief can come directly from the state, but so far it
hasn't.
Support of teachers by principals is essential. Every school
principal should have as the principal's first priority that every teacher at
the school is assured that the principal and any other administrators share with
teachers the responsibility for discipline. Too often, the teacher is simply
told that his or her classroom, because there is misbehavior, is not
well-managed. The misbehavior is assumed to be the fault of the teacher. Once in
a while, it may be. But most of the time, it is because the teacher is virtually
alone in trying to address truly tough situations involving a single troubled
students or perhaps several very different students.
*
State
funds for alternative schools and programs are absolutely critical. Smaller
class sizes and more teachers -- especially in the primary grades -are of
paramount significance.
It would make an enormous difference if the
state would fund even a few security personnel in a school or a school district
that has poor economic resources while facing safety and security deficiencies.
Moreover, it would be a highly visible demonstration of assistance. Funds for
the after-school detentions, study help and late-day transportation would be
very worthwhile. Funds for evening and Saturday programs for educationally
disadvantaged children would provide a cost-effective and productive learning
boost.
All of these, and more, would go a long way toward enabling more
students to learn and all students to learn more. It would all go toward
preventing many discipline problems from arising in the first place.
Albert Fondy is president of the Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers and
the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers, and vice president of the American
Federation of Teachers.
LOAD-DATE: March 28, 2000
