Public School:  A Travesty

An Educational Experience in Georgia

by Veronica Hughes

 

Education.  Webster's dictionary defines education, at least in part, to mean: the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools.   Maybe that's the way things first began, but is it that way now?  After all, the law requires education, and most of us pay school taxes in some form or other, so there must be some good in it, right?  Maybe so (somehow), but all the parents I have talked to have feelings ranging from the opinion that public education is not terribly effective and not much of an influence, to the opinion that public education is a dysfunctional, damaging and even a dangerous environment, so much so that they will go to great lengths to keep their children out of it.  I have yet to encounter one single person who praises public education, in the same way as I have never yet encountered anyone who has a favorite government program.

This could be related to the state I live in.  Our educational system is in the midst of controversy.  Here in the state of Georgia, we rank near the bottom in national test scores and teacher pay rates.   Last year, Governor Roy Barnes initiated sweeping changes in the state educational system after he declared that its overall quality needed a major overhaul.  Teachers welcomed the idea of pay raises to be sure, but when the term "merit pay" was introduced, they balked.  Paraprofessionals, the teachers aides who work in the classroom as teaching assistants, would no longer be paid for.  Funds were redirected towards curriculum and classroom improvements.  Teachers were indignant.  How could they handle classrooms that were barely within their control without the aid of paraprofessionals, they said?  Teacher tenure for newly hired teachers was discontinued altogether.  That was the last straw, and the teachers unions became outspoken and demonstrably incensed.

It seems Governor Barnes was using the part of Webster's definition of education that says education is "mainly methods of teaching and learning in schools" as his standard for change.  His goal was to raise test scores and pay real teachers real pay, so why did these particular teachers stubbornly resist change?  Maybe the fact that they feel threatened by change shows that the teachers who feel threatened have other motives besides what the dictionary definition say they should be doing in the classroom.

Public school is corrupt, there's no doubt about it.  It varies in degree from district to district, but it's painfully obvious that our kids could be doing better.  We've all seen the comparisons between our kids and those in other countries who typically score much higher in math, reading, and science, and yet our country is supposed to be the world's leading standard in economics and technology.   The paradox exists because our public education standards have shifted from Education of kids, to Control of kids.   Specific behaviors have become more important than academic achievement in schools.  It's become all about fitting into a behavioral mold predetermined by those who decide what a model school should be like, regardless of what reality dictates. 

This is fundamentally wrong.  It is opposed to education in its purest form, which is to nurture, or to "cause to grow" from the Latin root word.   It means "raising up," as in raising up a baby plant or animal.  Think of what happens when either a plant or an animal is physically constricted in its phase of growth, denied enough room for development, given only the barest of essentials of air, water and nourishment.  It becomes stunted, deformed, ugly, and possibly diseased.  Its original potential is damaged, and maybe even permanently lost.  Unfortunately, this is a good description of the typical public school environment we have today.  Our children are shuffled and prodded through an immense and impersonal institution for 13 (or more) years, an institution that now focuses more on behavioral psychology than on academic training.  The result of this is that kids are "controlled" much more than they instructed.    Even the parents are treated with a contemptuous attitude by the teachers and administrators if they dare to question the reasoning behind their actions, as if the School is entitled to unquestionable authority.   This is ominously similar to the state-run schools of Nazi Germany.    Are we parents and tax payers even paying attention to this?

Teachers now typically act as disciplinarians more than ever.  This is not a good thing.  The current  year 2000-2001 Georgia state university system college catalog describes courses for education majors that include classes such as:  "Teaching and Schools in a Changing Society," and "Learning, Motivation and Classroom Management."   Are teachers trained in more than academics, or does the modern definition of "academic" now include behavioral studies?   The answer is "yes," and "yes."

Public school teachers will often say that teaching is a demanding and often unappreciated job in which they fear for their own safety.  It's interesting to note that these sentiments don't usually come from teachers at private schools.   Their explanation for this is usually that students are more rebellious and violent than ever before, and crackdowns and demonstrations of authoritarianism are necessary to "keep control."   If that were really true, why does this happen mostly in the public school arena?  We rarely hear of dangerous behaviors in private schools, so obviously, there is a fundamental difference.  It's also interesting to note that while the public school teachers complain, few of them actually leave their jobs for better working conditions, indicating there must be some good pretty reasons to stay.

If a person got a job as a state prison warden, it would be a fairly easy job in which he or she would merely be making sure all of the currently enforced confinements of the prisoners remained in effect.   The employee would not be creating new methods of restricting the prisoners, but rather, the employee's main function would be as a babysitter - keeping and restoring order, and informing the higher authorities if a prisoner were to get out of line.  If the employee were trained to do his or her job by very strict state guidelines, there would be very little mental exertion required, very little creative thinking involved, and as a state employee and a union member, this person could likely keep the job as long as he or she wanted to.  What if this employee were also given every June, July, and August off from work as a bonus?  This might explain why public school teachers don't want to "run for their lives" in spite of their complaints.

Every year, we hear of stricter safety codes that must be followed to the letter, going far beyond the bounds of common sense.  We've seen the national news stories of the incidents involving kids being suspended or expelled  from school altogether for crimes such as pointing "finger guns" at each other, drawing pictures of weapons, bringing fingernail clippers to school, writing a violent or morbid story for a creative writing exercise, and so on.  Teachers defensively insist that this is all very necessary, but this is completely opposed to recent trends.  A recent statistic shows that the rate of youth violent crime is at its lowest since 1988 (Reason Magazine, March, 2001, page 10), so why the continuing crackdown with the searches, lockdowns, clear bookbags, drug sniffing dogs, uniformed police officers, surveillance cameras, parking lot guards, metal detectors, and red lettered warning signs announcing stiff federal penalties for violators in virtually every school?   Perhaps our "tax dollars at work" signs will soon start appearing on armed guard towers and barbed wire fences.

If you ask a public school student, they will surely tell you that school is more of a stressful environment than an enjoyable one, more negative than positive.  Is it any wonder, since they are all treated as potential criminals whether they actually are or not?  This is the kind of suffocating, growth stunting environment I mentioned as being opposed to the concept of "education."  But what about the ordinary, every day types of disciplines given out by teachers to address the small problems?   Isn't this more reasonable than all the other extreme measures?  Don't teachers tailor a discipline to the specific situation instead of following an all encompassing rule?  Unfortunately, the answer is usually no.   No, because they are either restricted altogether from making individual case by case judgements, or no, because they just don't have to.

Case in point.  My husband and I recently had an unusually exasperating experience with a parent/conference with four of my daughter's seventh grade teachers. This conference was called by the Language Arts teacher who claimed my daughter had a discipline problem.   The rules for parent/teacher conferences now dictate that teachers meet with parents as "teams" instead of individuals, and all four of her teachers were present, as well as the principal.  So much for one-on-one discussions between equal adults, and one more leg up for those in the intimidation department. 

The principal has always been present at every school meeting my husband and I have recently been to, since a controversy arose from an incident during the previous year in which a teacher hit the side of my car with her fist in the parking lot.   (This was her response to my driving around, rather than over, a speed bump.  I attempted to deal with this in a meeting with the teacher and the principal, and by correspondence with the school board and the Policies and Standards Board, but to no avail.)  Since that particular meeting (at which the school uniformed police officer was present), the principal has been present at all subsequent parent/teacher/administrator meetings, no matter what the purpose of the meeting, always acting as an overseer, and always with a tape recorder on hand.  

To an outside observer, this must give the impression that my husband and I are some sort of a threat.  The fact is, we had never actually done anything more "threatening" than question the school policies or actions of the personnel, and voice our displeasure with those things we don't agree with, as our First Amendment Right allows us to do.   I always leave these meetings with the feeling I have just been part of a giant con game, in which I am required to act with affirmation that these are Good People, and if I disagree with them at any point, I run the risk of spoiling the game by allowing disillusionment to creep in and blowing their disguise.  This meeting was no different, except that maybe the perceptible level of contempt for my husband and me was higher than usual.

This apparent purpose of this meeting was an attempt to make a huge mountain out of a molehill, and, incredibly, to garner our sanction and support for doing so, even if it meant using intimidation and other unfair tactics.  I had the foresight to bring my own tape recorder this time, and the meeting begins with me asking the principal if it's okay to tape the meeting.  The contempt my husband and I were treated with is obvious in the remarks made by some of those present, especially by the principal, and even the contempt for my daughter, an A and B student who rarely has trouble in school, was remarkably high.  The following are actual excerpts from the meeting, some slightly condensed but with the intended meanings intact, interjected with explanations of what was going on.

Principal:  "This is just so we have records of it."

Mr. Hughes (step father):  "Hell, let's just take a video (in jest)."

Principal:  "If you'd like, you can.  Please don't use any bad language or I'll have to ask you to leave, okay?  No curse words."

It's interesting to note that principal immediately takes a condescending attitude and makes adult language off limits, even though this was a private meeting between adults behind closed doors.   If my husband had used a stronger word, his request would seem reasonable, but the common word "hell" has even occasionally appears in the school's literature text books, so his request seems unwarranted.  He imposes on us a strict standard of unequals:  he is the authority and we are to submit, as subjects.  It's ironic that the principal himself makes liberal use of the English language in a loose and informal manner, so apparently it's okay for him, but not okay for us.  Apparently, he is free to impose a kind of moral authority ("no curse words"), and double standards are acceptable if he chooses to use them.

Teacher 1:  I teach Nicole language arts and she is a very bright child academically.  She does fine work.  However, as of lately, I have had some problems with Nicole in the area of discipline, which is why I called you.  For six days in a row, I had to remind Nicole that she was in the wrong seat, as I had reassigned her seat.  After the sixth day, I decided I would have to take some action because it seemed it wasn't a memory problem, it was a deliberate action."

I asked this teacher why she thought this was a deliberate action, the teacher told me that because she is so intelligent, this shouldn't happen.  The principal had the opinion that she had a learning disability.  My husband pointed out that the teacher said she did fine work, and this was illogical.  I am thinking that sitting in the wrong seat hardly warrants the gravity of this meeting, or the two detentions my daughter received for doing so.

Principal:  "Well that's not true at all because a lot of children with learning disabilities makes A's and B's."

Mr. Hughes:   "Well then they don't have learning disabilities."

Principal:  "Learning disabilities in some areas."

This shows that academic excellence, which my daughter admittedly exhibits, does not count as much as her specific behavior does.   Behavior is regarded more highly than academic excellence in this instance.  The "discipline problem" is her simply not sitting in the correct seat six times in a row.  This is branded as a "learning disability," meaning, "behavior disability."  I go on to explain that my daughter is quite the creature of habit when it comes to forgetting things, and that we work fairly hard to motivate her to remember things often, and this is her normal behavior.  The discussion changes back to the seating problem.  The principal dominates the conversation, as the teachers have nothing else to add to the issue so far.  My husband acknowledges this by mentioning that the only problem admitted so far is her not recognizing the seating rule.

Principal:  "She's gonna have to do that.  What we're trying to do, we're trying to work with y'all to get her to do what she's supposed to do, what the teachers ask her to do.  If she don't (sic), then the next step is heavy handed when we start suspending her from school, the whole nine yards.  We don't want to do that, we're trying to avoid that by having this conference."

This sounded to me like an attempt at intimidation.   What I was thinking at that time was, surely there must be other problems in this whole big middle school much more important than this;  why would the principal even bother to suspend someone from school and give them "the whole nine yards" for sitting in the wrong seat?  Aren't there better priorities he could pay attention to?  Since behaviors seem so important, aren't there worse ones in this school?  Or are there, I wonder?  Doesn't this man have anything else to do?

By way of further explanation about my daughter's possible motives, I told them how she had once been a terrible math student, and that I had homeschooled her for six months last year and drilled her very hard in basic math.  This was necessary to get her beyond some "forgetfulness" habits she had regarding times tables and other basic concepts.  I asked her math teacher if she was a good math student, or just an okay student.

Principal (to math teacher):  "What's her grades like?"

Math Teacher:  "I gave a test about two weeks ago, and a lot of students did very bad on it.  She made a 78, which is very good compared to the most of the rest.  She could be turning in more homework, though."

Principal:  "Is that consistent, she's a B student, she just don't turn in homework?"

Math Teacher:  "Yeah, I'd say she's capable of getting A's but I think she's a B/C student."

Again, another teacher affirms my daughter's capability of (and occasional achievement of) academic excellence.  I use the math mental block example to explain to them that I know how my daughter's brain works, and they do not, and it's very possible that she did not sit in the wrong seat on purpose.  My husband tells them it is foolish to take offense at such a very minor incident.

Principal:  "Here's what we have to do.  We normally give children the benefit of the doubt and I think every teacher setting (sic) in here does.  But usually, two or three times is enough that, a child this age, that if they have to remind them to do what you expect them to do, you know, and uh, beyond that is pretty easy to assume that they're just being insubordinate.  (emphasis added) This doesn't seem to be a problem beyond this seat thing does it?  I haven't been aware that it is.  Are there any other areas?"

Teacher 1:  "Uh, her behavior, uh yes sir, we've...(sic) uh Nicole, for example, the day of the field trip, when Nicole was in my class, I had given three assignments, they were listed on the board, visually, uh, perceptible.  And I told them that these were the things that they needed to accomplish in the hour while they were in my room.  Um, Nicole did one, and then she sat and read.  She did not do the worksheet.  I announced to the class that they needed to be 'on task', but she sat and read instead of doing the work."

Mr. Hughes:  "It's egregious, of course, to sit in language arts class and read."

Several students, including my daughter, elected not to go on the school field trip that day and were given "busy work" to do instead.  The book my daughter was reading instead of doing her busy work was the actual literature textbook from this same teacher's language arts class - but now there is a second "transgression," another act of insubordination: reading in class!

Ms. Hughes (mother):  "Um, (pulling out detention slip copy) are you gonna add to this detention then?  Why are you bringing this up now?"

The teacher explains that it was merely in response to the principal's question regarding additional behavior problems.

Principal:  And that's why she brought this thing up, I just asked.  We're trying to explore to see if this is a pre-va-lent (sic) problem, when did it start, is it something that she's uh, willfully doing?"

So far, we have spent 10 or 15 minutes discussing the ramifications of these two acts of insubordination, with the principal doing most of the talking.  I see no real point to this, as the principal is just an outside observer any way.   I'm wondering why this warrants a meeting between seven adults.

Ms. Hughes:  "Well, let me ask you, what's the problem here?"

Teacher 3:  "Well, she's gotten detention in my class for not bringing her textbook."

Now there are three acts of insubordination.  I ask this teacher if she is the one famously known between my daughter and myself as the teacher who gives out "thousands" of detentions.

Principal:  "What do you mean a thousand detentions?"

Teacher 4:  "Excuse me, yes, yes I do, I give Nicole lots of detentions (emphasis included)."

Ms. Hughes:  "Yeah, I know."

Teacher 4:  "As opposed to writing an office referral and sending her to the office.  Nicole is very intelligent, but she feels as though she is above the law."  (emphasis added)

Mr. Hughes:  "The law?!"

Teacher 4:  "She is not!  She has to follow the rules and regulations like everybody else."

Principal:  "Right.  The rules and regulations that allows (sic) as a government school."

Teacher 4:  "Nicole does not want to walk in the line and all the other children in the seventh grade are walking in line, she wants to walk outside the line.  If I ask her to stop talking, she doesn't feel as though she has to stop talking until she gets ready.  Now these things are tolerable, yes they are, to a certain degree, but I give her detentions because I want her to know that these things are unacceptable, this is not acceptable behavior." (emphasis added)

Now there are two more bad behaviors added to the list, including of all things, walking outside of the line.   I have images of prisoners in chain gangs, and maybe goose steppers in formation.  Just how much control does this teacher need to have over a student who makes A's and B's, and has never been in trouble before?  This teacher has contradicted herself in saying these things are tolerable to a certain degree, by also adding that in my daughter's case they are not.  She gives no explanation as to why this is so.  It sounds to me like she can be as unfair and arbitrary as she likes, as the principal seems to be completely supportive of this.  His next statements confirm my intuition.

Principal: "I know of no situations that where, um...(sic) is not justified that when we give punishments, there's very, very few exceptions."

Ms. Hughes:  "No situations Mr. Horton?! (with emphasis)"

The previous week, an incident occurred at this same school in which a teacher choked a student.  This was covered by the local Fox news affiliate two nights in a row, with one scene showing the principal walking away from the camera offering no comment, after being asked for one by the reporter.  My husband and I saw the coverage both nights, and were only mildly surprised.  We should have been horrified, but even we have become somewhat conditioned to accept the abuse of authority, especially from those in schools.  Not a good thing, especially for those who regularly check up on the activities of those in government.

Principal:  "Very few, let me change that to very few.  99.9 percent of the time when a teacher has assigned some type of punishment, it is justifiable."

Ms. Hughes:  "Just like Fox 5 news said last week?"

Principal:  "What's Fox 5 got to do with this? (getting irate)  What's it got to do with your child?"

The principal acts as if there should be no connection between the out of line behavior of one of his teachers, and my concerns!  I'm not sure if he thinks he is being clever, or if he really and truly just doesn't see a problem with what has recently happened.  I find this disturbing, and another part of the overall "con game" scenario.  He is obviously angry that I brought the subject up, however. 

Principal:  "Are you here to help your child or are you here just to raise sand with us?  If it's that, please, I'm going to end the conference."

He first refused to talk on camera, and he now threatens to end the meeting if I press the issue further.   He should be reassuring me left and right that this kind of incident will not happen again, that it has been properly dealt with, but he wants to keep the topic totally off limits.  He should be very concerned that this incident might make him look bad, but he isn't;  he is totally complacent about it!  He doesn't feel he needs to answer to me whatsoever.  I then remind him that I am present today because I was summoned by a teacher to be there, not the other way around, and for no other reason. Then my husband speaks, sensing that this is going nowhere fast, and attempts to wrap things up.

Mr. Hughes:  "If Nicole is not performing the work you expect her to do, because that's what she's here for, is to learn stuff and to go through the hoops that you set out for her, and that's what we all have to do by law, as you mentioned.  But as far as the other things goes, as far as walking a little bit out of line, as far as not sitting in the seat that someone demands, I think you folks should just lighten up a little bit."

Principal:  "No.  No. (shaking head no in unison with two other teachers)  No.  No, we will not.  These are the rules that govern the school and this applies to every student across the board, or we will be..."

Ms. Hughes:  (interrupting) "And this has to do with education and not behavior reform?"

At this point, I am tempted to get irate myself.  I have been trying to remain rational and very patient in the face of this huge bureaucratic waste of my time.  The principal interrupts me once again to emphatically ask me if I'm there to talk about my daughter or not.  I tell him, emphatically in return, that if he will allow me to sum up, I will do so and then he can say whatever he likes.  He agrees. 

I then tell him that I agree that my daughter should receive a discipline for flagrantly breaking legitimate rules, if she has truly broken those rules, and I say that as a government school, they obviously have no choice about their methods.  I am about to explain that I find arbitrary and unfair rules to be exasperating, but unfortunately unavoidable in government institutions, as the teachers and administrators are not allowed to use reason.  The principal interrupts me yet again! 

The following conclusion is the most telling of the entire con game scenario with the principal making several attempts to make us submit to his views, by using and misusing a sense of moral and civic obligation, legal language, and the threat of a uniformed police officer to remove us from the premises.   

Principal:  "It's more than a government, it is a parental responsibility. (with emphasis)

Ms. Hughes:  "Excuse me!  I am a good parent, and she is a good kid."

Mr. Hughes:  "And you're not letting us have our responsibility here."

Principal:  "And the law says that when she is here..."

Ms. Hughes:  (interrupting)  "You are not her parent."

Principal:  "In loco parentis, yes it does the law recognizes that."

Ms. Hughes:  "I don't recognize that."

Principal:  "Well, the law does."

Ms. Hughes:  "No it does not sir.  I read the law too, and you are not (sic) there are not two guardians of a child."

He goes on to tell me I should check with an attorney.  I tell him I have already done that, as I have represented myself in some legal matters and I have done a lot research on family law in the state of Georgia.  He says that my attorney has advised me wrongly.   Suddenly the principal has become a law expert, or is he merely an expert at repeating what he's been told to say, I wonder.  I have read the Georgia statutes on custody jurisdiction issues, and I tell him I have seen it with my own eyes, and that I have every reason to disagree with his opinion that I have been ill advised.  His reply?

Principal:  "Okay, no." (shaking head no)

He categorically refuses to recognize what I'm saying, either in an attempt to invalidate my opinion, or to simply override me.  He and I continue to debate as the whether or not the school is my child's "local parent."  He informs me that "in loco parentis" is Latin for local parent.  I still refuse to be swayed.   

The term in loco parentis literally means in the place of a parent.  In the state of Georgia, it is not something that anyone can arbitrarily assume on themselves because a natural parent or legal guardian doesn't happen to be present.  The law explicitly states that there cannot be two legal guardians of a child (with the exception of a married couple acting as one entity) and that parental rights and duties belong only to one entity at a time.  In the state of Alabama, in order for someone to be considered in loco parentis, they must have intentionally assumed the rights and duties of a parent.  What this principal is intimating to me, as if I don't understand the terminology, is that he and the school personnel may have actually assumed the rights and duties of a parent, when they have no right to do so!  The possibility that they might actually believe this way is a link to fascism, another component of Nazi Germany.  This might help explain the arbitrary nature of their disciplinary actions, among other things.