I am indebted to Jack Drury, of Leading Edge, Inc. for this quote:

"My business partner Bruce Bonney, a high school social studies teacher for nearly 30 years used to actually write on his lesson plans for substitutes, “This class runs itself.”

Jack offered this comment when we were discussing the “Student Run Classrooms” that I have written about in this space. I had mentioned that, at the college level, when I have to miss a class, I rarely cancel. My students have group assignments and each group is responsible for running a portion of class on the day of my absence.

When I share this with teachers, many quickly observe, “That’s OK at the college level, but it would never work in my class.” This is why Jack’s comments were so significant. He was talking about high school. A few years ago, a 4th grade teacher in Elmira described similar experiences with her class.

I am not suggesting that any teacher could take any class, tomorrow, and prepare the class in one day to run itself the next time a substitute is present. But, I submit, it can be done at almost any grade level, with appropriate preparation. The keys are:

The class must be divided into small groups and each group must have a manageable assignment.

The students must be experienced working in groups and presenting to each other.

Accountability must be built in. In other words, there must be products that will emerge from student work that can be shared with the teacher so the teacher will know what the students have done and how well, and so that the teacher can grade the students. (The students must know that their work, when the teacher is absent, will be made available to the teacher and may count toward their grade.)

When I recently e-mailed Jack about his observation, he suggested I contact Sarah Bencze, a 3rd grade teacher at Tupper Lake, for another illustration of how the best instructions for a substitute can be “Ask the class, they know what they are to do.” Sarah has worked with Jack on the design of “Challenges,” a format developed by Leading Edge for creating standards-focused projects to improve student achievement. Here is what Sarah had to say:

“I began a “Challenge” (a project) on a Wednesday afternoon in January. The kids were making a model of the galaxy. Jack had told us that the kids would enjoy the challenges so much they would want to work on them first thing the next day. So I left everything out (it was a huge mess), boxes, paints, etc. During the night my son got sick and I could not go to school the next day. Knowing the mess was there, I sent a note to the sub and said ‘The kids will know what to do, let them finish.’

“I went up to school at the end of the day to collect my other son and my students had done a fantastic job. The room was still a mess, but the challenge had been explained well and they knew what to do.”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

The issue is not “To standardized test or not to standardized test.”

Of course we need standardized tests. How else will we know whether a B+ in Canton, New York has equivalent value to a B+ at Hempstead High School on Long Island? How else will universities assess students with comparable grades from a variety of high schools?

The issues are:

What should standardized tests assess? How should standardized tests be assessed? How often should students receive standardized tests? What is the purpose of standardized testing? Can portfolios, interviews, teacher observation, and other forms of multiple assessments be integrated into the standardized process?

The purpose of standardized testing is the first issue that needs to be addressed because the purpose will determine who should be assessed, in what disciplines, and how often?

Do we want standardized tests for high stakes assessment (ie. to determine grades and promotions for students)? Are standardized tests for the purpose of holding school districts accountable? Are standardized tests for the purpose of assessing the value of newly instituted programs? Are standardized tests for the purpose of enabling higher level educational institutions the opportunity for comparison among applicants?

I suspect that when we reach consensus on why we want standardized tests, answers to other questions such as frequency of testing, students to be tested, and disciplines to be assessed will more easily be agreed upon.

I also suspect that when we reach consensus on why we want standardized tests, we will realize that we can decrease the frequency and complexity of standardized tests and, thereby, reduce the stress level for parents, teachers, students, and administrators who must give priority to preparation for standardized tests.

It is not my intent to suggest answers to most of the questions I am posing in this article. I think too many people are insisting they have the answers and not enough people are trying to define the issues and pose the questions.

For instance, a front page article in Education Week, a few years ago, praised Long Beach New York for its efforts to raise standards. The writer cited concern that students could graduate high school without being able to convert inches to feet. The solution: Long Beach High School would raise the minimum standard for passing a particular course from 75% to 80% (or some such thing).

This sounded logical (at least to the writer and, I assume, many readers). After all, if we raise the minimum passing grade, we are raising the standard. Right? No, it’s wrong.

Duh! Even if we raise the minimum passing grade to 95%, doesn’t this still allow a student to pass the test while missing the 5 point question on converting inches to feet?

What I am suggesting is that if we want to be sure students can convert inches to feet, we should not let them pass unless they can demonstrate the ability to convert inches to feet.

A devil’s advocate will say, “But it takes time to have students demonstrate they can convert inches to feet. You can’t elicit such a demonstration on a short answer test. If we had students demonstrate everything we expect them to know and be able to do, there wouldn’t be time enough in the school day for teachers or students.”

My response: “As a devil’s advocate, you are correct. It isn’t practical to have students demonstrate proficiency at everything the curriculum says they should know. But IT IS practical if we identify a few key concepts and competencies that are critical for students to master and insist that they demonstrate proficiency before moving on. Whether conversion of inches to feet is one of these critical competencies is open to debate. But if we decide it is critical then we shouldn’t allow a student with a 95% on a test to move ahead unless that student can demonstrate proficiency converting inches to feet.”

What I am suggesting would result in a two tier system of testing for all students:

1. Most student expectations would be assessed as we currently do. A passing grade would be required based on whatever assessment a school utilizes.

2. Those student expectations we deem critical (ie. reading at a certain level, certain basic concepts in math, science or any other subject) would be assessed through a performance demonstration that enabled the student to demonstrate (and the teacher to assess) proficiency.

There is precedent for this. Would we allow a perspective doctor to pass an exam on surgical ability if he/she did everything right except removing a sponge from a patient’s stomach when completing the surgery? (“While it’s true the patient died because of your mistake, you had the other 9 functions correct so we will give you a passing grade of 90.”) Would we allow an auto mechanic to pass his/her exam if breaks in three of four cars were repaired satisfactorily and the fourth one was misdiagnosed which could result in a fatal accident? After all, the mechanic would have 75% of the work done correctly.

Currently, we do not have a system in place for assessing student performance because it would be too costly, too time consuming, and we don’t have teaching staffs sufficiently trained for performance assessment. We assess student responses to short answer and essay questions. In the past few years we have added some performance requirements to our exams and this is a positive development, but this still represents too small a portion of our assessments. While New York State is demonstrating that performance assessment could be practical (many years down the road) by the way it is assessing 4th and 8th grade ELA and math – training cadres of scorers - this will not happen overnight.

Currently few if any standardized tests are fully aligned with State standards, and while most have a few performance based questions there are still too many short answer/essay type questions which do not assess higher level thinking skills. This is why some of the better schools are protesting standardized tests and arguing for recognition of their ability to meet higher standards than those required by the standardized tests. If a school is preparing students to use higher level thinking skills, the standardized tests are not only not reinforcing them, but are requiring them to divert time toward preparing for too much drill and kill type learning.

Realistically, it will be many years before we have the capability for using standardized tests to accurately assess student performance. We need to keep working in this direction. In the meantime, if we would focus on those few skills, concepts, and competencies that are absolutely critical to a student’s future success, we might be able to design assessments for these expectations and accomplish what we are not accomplishing with an overkill of standardized testing that is now threatening to topple our ability to keep pace as we add the federal regulations that are flowing from the recent Bush administration legislation.

What about holding schools accountable?

I applaud the state’s (and nation’s) efforts to identify schools in need and to provide appropriate support. But there are questions here which must be addressed:

• Is it surprising that few, if any, schools under review are from communities with above average levels of parent income or education? Is the frequency of standardized testing really necessary to identify these schools or is it more like pounding someone who is already down by constantly telling them they are not doing well?

• Given research that shows it takes three to six, or more, years for an innovation to demonstrate a major impact on a school system, is it realistic to access school district performance annually and punish or reward districts on the basis of what they appear to be accomplishing within a year or two?

The battle lines are being drawn. Students, parents, teachers, administrators, and the State Education Department are being drawn into battles over the issue of standardized testing that are taking away our valuable time from joint efforts at improving our schools. What are the solutions? For a proposal, tune into next week’s column.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Last week, I tried to pose questions and suggest issues to be addressed in the debate over standardized testing. I suggested that the issue IS NOT “whether” to have standardized tests. There will always be a need for them. However, the real issues are whether there needs to be one a year in every discipline, or one in 12 years, whether the standardized assessments need to be through portfolios, short answer tests, student interviews, essays, student performance, teacher observation and/or multiple techniques, and whether all students should be held to a similar pass-fail standard are among the issues that need to be discussed and resolved.

When I bargained in school districts, I would lament the time, effort, money, and other resources that the district and union were committing to bargaining and I used to say “Imagine if all these talented people could spend an equivalent amount of effort and resources to develop joint solutions to the problems in education.” Now I have the same feeling as I see the enormous amount of time and effort that people are devoting toward the debate (for, against, or otherwise) over standardized tests – and this includes the many policy makers whose time and resources are now being diverted into defense of their policies.

My proposal is for New York State, but it is in the form of a model that could be adapted by any State or the Federal government:

Convene a statewide meeting of representatives of every stakeholder group.

• Use a process that ensures people from the grassroots of every stakeholder group – include leaders, but don’t limit the meeting to leadership.

• Meet for a few days with a well planned agenda.

• DO NOT try to sell anyone on anything. Instead, come in with an agenda of questions designed to uncover the issues, uncover attitudes toward the issues, and designed to elicit ideas and propose solutions.

• Train skilled people to facilitate the multi-day meeting with a goal of gathering as much feedback as possible, with no effort to sell anyone on anything.

• Within a month, tabulate the feedback and send a report to all participants, and the general public:
o With all the raw data, unedited
o With conclusions reached by the convening group (SED or whomever)
o With a proposal for next steps

• Allow time for public feedback

• Reconvene the original group for a two-day meeting to generate feedback and reactions to the “conclusions” and “next steps” published by SED.

• Then finalize an action plan and implement it.

Do you think this is too simplistic or idealistic?

It will work. It will work because there is a paradigm shift that needs to occur. Those who have worked with me over the years know that this is a paradigm shift we have utilized, successfully, many times. The paradigm shift is for management (or the governing body) to resist the temptation to identify problems, pose solutions, and then SELL those solutions to stakeholders; instead, this is a paradigm shift that asks higher level administration (SED, governing body, and/or top management) to facilitate identification of the problems and solutions from the constituents. Then “Selling” isn’t necessary. All that is necessary is a process for testing whether top management’s conclusions from what it thinks it hears from the stakeholders are accurate.

Funny thing: what I am proposing is that the commissioner and SED model for the rest of us what they (and we) are all asking teachers to do in the classroom. Don’t come in with all the answers; facilitate us into designing the questions and then developing the solutions.

This, in my opinion, is how to handle the growing crisis over standardized testing:

1. Recognize that we are all on the same side – we want improved student performance.

2. Recognize this is an issue with many complexities and requiring the combined expertise of us all to resolve.

3. Utilize the process I defined (above) to bring us all together to identify the problems/issues, propose solutions, and collaborate on implementation of the solutions.

This can be done. It will require SED to focus on developing a tight, relevant agenda and to focus on getting representation at the initial three day meeting, prek through graduate school, from parents, teachers, administrators, students, and the business community.

Are you thinking that an effective agenda can’t be put together and effectively facilitated?

Are you thinking that representatives of all these groups cannot be brought together for a three day meeting and, then, a two-day follow up meeting a few months later?

Are you thinking this cannot be done at a relatively low cost?

Those of you who have collaborated with me on “impossible” tasks in the past, know it can be done. Besides, as Tevya (“Fiddler on the Roof”) might say: “Is what we’re doing now working so wonderfully that we shouldn’t give this a chance?”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Recently, I have focused on standardized testing and I have suggested two major paradigm shifts. Here is a brief summary of each:

In the April 23 article, I spoke of some student outcomes that need to be pass/fail. It may be OK to pass a student in social studies who can demonstrate an understanding of 65% of the material assessed on a test, but there are certain skills and understandings that are so essential to student learning that a student should not be allowed to proceed until mastery has been demonstrated.

We can accept someone into the medical profession who is 80 percent satisfactory in terms of interpersonal skills, but we would deny entry to that same person if his/her ability to remember which arm to amputate was only 90 percent. (Would you want to be the tenth person in surgery with this doctor?)

Similarly, if a student cannot read at a satisfactory level for his/her grade, remedial support should be provided and that student should not be permitted to advance to another level until he/she can master a minimum level of reading proficiency. Certain concepts in mathematics, and in other disciplines, should be minimum requirements for advancement.

No teacher has the time to assess every student for mastery of every skill, concept, and competency that our educational system values. It would take too long for the assessments. Also, no school can be expected to provide remedial support to the degree necessary to bring every student up to a minimum mastery of every learning objective. (This is why we accept 65 or 70 or 75 percent as a passing grade.)

Unfortunately, however, our present system goes too far to the opposite extreme. We don’t demand mastery of anything, as long as a student can get a minimum grade average. In other words, if a student has a 65 percent average (or some other predetermined average), he/she passes. This is OK, if the student recalls 65 percent of the information tested on a science quiz, even if the names of three types of clouds elude the student.

This is OK, if the student remembers 70 % of the rules of grammar on an English quiz. However, when the student does not achieve a certain (age appropriate) minimum proficiency with the skill of reading, it should not be acceptable to allow the student to advance without providing remedial support to ensure that the student will master a minimum level of proficiency.

I am suggesting a two-tiered system of assessment:

1. Continue to assess, if we must, by requiring a minimum percentage score on certain assessments.

2. Identify those skills, concepts, facts, and/or competencies that a child needs to master in order to keep pace with his/her classmates and do not allow a child to proceed to a higher level of education until that child has mastered what needs to be learned. This can be done in any discipline to whatever degree it is deemed necessary.

Note: I am not advocating for failing more students. I am advocating for providing the necessary support (ie. the intended goal of an AIS) so that no student advances to a higher level of schooling without mastering what is absolutely essential.

What a nice, catchy phrase this is: “Top Down Support for Bottom Up Reform.”

What a nice, catchy phrase this is: “A teacher should shift from the sage on the stage to being the guide on the side.”

Both of these phrases have similar intent which can be summed up in one word: “Facilitate!”

Teachers, in increasing number, are making the effort to become more facilitative. Good administrators are increasingly respecting the expertise of their staffs and making the effort to facilitate decisions from the experts they’ve hired rather than dictate policy to them.

Governmental bodies, including but not limited to State Education Departments, need to do the same: become more facilitative. In my last article I proposed a process for addressing the concerns raised by standardized testing. In a nutshell, I proposed that SED facilitate a series of dialogues in which representatives of all stakeholder groups are asked to identify the issues arising out of standardized testing and then are asked to propose solutions.

This, to me, is what is meant by “Top Down Support for Bottom Up Reform.”

Governmental bodies cannot abdicate their leadership roles, nor can they give up their right to make final decisions. However, they can facilitate involvement in the decision making process by everyone with a stake in the outcome.

This is a very difficult paradigm shift to initiate. The natural tendency of any administrative body is to define problems and develop solutions. Stakeholder involvement is sought by requesting input and holding hearings. This IS NOT sufficient stakeholder involvement. There is a mindset that administrative bodies need to adopt in order to break the paradigm of top-down decision making. The mind set is for leaders to say to themselves, and believe:

• The stakeholders know the issues and are capable of defining the issues, proposing solutions, and implementing the solutions.

• No individual, me included, is brighter than the sum total of the stakeholders whom I serve.

• My job is to develop the skill to create meaningful agendas and facilitate issue definition, and problem solving strategies from the people closest to the implementation level.

• I can still make the final decision on how to address an issue, but I should make every effort to facilitate decisions from stakeholders and I should only substitute my judgment if I feel it is absolutely necessary.

• I need to keep reminding myself that effective implementation is almost guaranteed when the people who have to implement are the ones who are deeply involved in developing the implementation plan.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

As we work on a book we’re co-writing with Pat Flynn and Paul Vermette, Niagara University professor Mike Smith continues to remind me of the importance of intrinsically motivating our students. We label our version of constructivism “Authentic-Task Constructivism” because we believe a teacher has to go beyond the use of constructivist strategies and must link these strategies to assignments that require students to engage in authentic tasks.

If a task is truly “authentic” to a student (and what is “authentic” for one student may not be for another), then intrinsic motivation will take over. How do we know when a student is intrinsically motivated? We’ve all seen it: when the student forgets about the grade and works on the assignment because he/she enjoys or sees the need for completing the task – when this happens the student is demonstrating intrinsic motivation. When the student does more than he/she needs to do in order to receive a satisfactory grade, we know the student is intrinsically motivated.

I would submit that Whoopi Goldberg summed up the essence of her intrinsic motivation during an interview in the June 17, 2002 issue of Newsweek. Ms. Goldberg won a Tony award as one of the co-producers of “Thoroughly Modern Millie,” winner of the Best Musical award.

QUESTION:

Do you each get your own Tony?

RESPONSE (from Whoopi Goldberg)

I believe I get my own. . . I know it’s a terrible thing to say, but I wouldn’t have been bummed if we’d lost. For me, the fact that it (the show) got up onstage with my name in the playbill – anything else after that is gravy.”

In other words, the completion of the project and achievement of the goal was more important than an award (or grade).

As a teacher, you may have to use externally motivating stimuli (ie. grades or threats, or other inducements) to encourage students to begin an activity, but how often are you able to design a task that will engage students to the point of forgetting the external motivation and simply wanting to successfully complete their work?

As a staff developer, how often are you able to motivate teachers, administrators, parents, or others to engage in your workshop content regardless of the externally motivating factors that may have initially brought them to your session?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

If I were to suggest that when my students do poorly I act as if I were at fault, you might say, “Don, you’re out of touch with reality. Some students can’t be helped because they won’t make the effort no matter what the teacher does.”

I agree. Unfortunately, some students are so convoluted in their thinking that no matter what a good teacher does, they may be beyond reach. However, this is not the same as saying that not every student can learn. I am saying, as any teacher knows, that some students (for a variety of reasons) cannot be made to behave, or will not focus on their studies, and/or don’t care if they pass or fail.

Nevertheless, when I feel a student is performing below capability, my initial reaction is to assess my teaching performance.

There is a paper I assign to my St. Lawrence University students every semester – there is a particular structure I insist that they learn. This semester, the student grades are significantly better than for the past seven semesters even though my grading standard is the same.

Is the quality of students this semester, significantly higher than in previous semesters? No. My teaching is better:

I am giving clearer instructions, I have devised more effective methods to articulate my expectations; I have created better outlines for students to use as models; I have implemented a peer assessment process to provide feedback for students before they turn their rough drafts into final papers; and I have integrated the concepts I want to see in this paper into other classroom assignments so that students experience these concepts more frequently before they write this paper.

Yes, my initial reaction when I am not satisfied that students are demonstrating their abilities on an assignment is to reflect on whether I am teaching as effectively as possible. But I am not a hopeless idealist. If I am convinced that I am doing everything possible to afford a student the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, and if I am convinced a student simply cannot be motivated regardless of my strategies, I let myself off the hook. But I’d rather look to my teaching methods, long and hard, BEFORE concluding the student is beyond help, otherwise I may miss something in my performance that needs to be adjusted. It took me seven semesters to get to the point on the assignment of the paper, referred to above, where I was able to see the kind of student performance that I felt it was possible to achieve.

John F. Kennedy said he hoped that he was “An idealist with no illusions.”

A teacher needs to be sufficiently “idealistic” to believe that there is a way to reach every student. Yet, to survive, a teacher has to recognize when the inability to reach a certain student is beyond the capacity of any good teacher. It is a fine line to recognize. I’d rather err on the side of assuming there is a way to reach a particular student – and I just haven’t yet found it - than to cease the effort too soon.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

I’ve offered my “disclaimer” in previous columns over the past three years so I’ll abbreviate it and cut to the chase:

I am not a professional stock market analyst, nor have I ever been a successful investor. The opinions you are about to read are based on my personal observations and experiences, but there is nothing in my professional background to indicate that you should take my economic views seriously.

When the market (as measured by the Dow and the Nasdaq) was at record highs, a few years ago, I began suggesting economic similarities between the 1920s and 1990s. I warned of a possible market crash and subsequent depression similar to 1929 and the 30s. I suggested the Nasdaq (above 5,000 a few years ago) could retreat as low as 500 – 1,000, and the Dow could head toward 2,000 sooner than it would approach 20,000.

I continue to see similarities between the twenties and nineties; I fear the possibility of a far bigger market tumble than we have already experienced and I fear that it could presage a much steeper economic slide.

Want stimulating reading? Check out the financial sections of the New York Times from October 29, 1929 through the spring of 1930. As you peruse newspapers in the aftermath of the crash, keep in mind that the current drop in the Nasdaq market index has nearly tripled the percentage drop of the Dow, in the crash of ’29; it has also fallen almost as far as the Dow fell from its peak in 1929 to its bottom in the mid 30s. The 1929 market crash was dramatic in its intensity and rapidity, but the real damage to the market occurred from its much longer and steeper slide which resumed in the spring of 1930 after a rally from the lows of the previous October.

If you do peruse newspaper accounts from the winter of 1929-30, you will read:

• That many economists felt the market crash was simply a correction of the excesses of the 1920s and not a forerunner of an economic slide

• Reassurances from the president that the economy was fundamentally sound

• Dire predictions of economic disaster coming from only a tiny minority of the experts

My own crystal ball has more clouds than an Oregon sky; nevertheless, I foresee an economy that will continue to slide until the only question is whether to apply the word “recession” or “depression.”

What could this mean for the field of education? We’ll have to focus on our priorities, lobby for what we need against a backdrop of increased competition for decreasing resources. A news report the other day, not surprisingly, indicated that as state tax revenues decline, nationwide, spending on education is taking the biggest hit. Public schools are under funded in the best of times. What can we expect as we endure the worst economic climate since the 1930s?

If meaningful education reform is to occur we must stop spending money and bringing in programs simply because, in our judgment, they will do some good. That is not good enough. We must prioritize and undertake that which will provide the most bang for the buck, precisely because there are not going to be many bucks.

In subsequent articles, I’ll be more specific in suggesting how we can improve educational opportunities and raise standards despite less available funding. For now, I’ll simply suggest that as the adults in charge of our educational processes (educators, parents, politicians, and others) we will need to collaborate and cooperate in our decision-making instead of acting like the immature students we are trying to educate.

On a more positive note, the upside of a bad economy is often a return to solid values as many of the temptations that come with good economic times are no longer as readily available to people; also, pride is generated as more of us have to roll up our sleeves and work hard for every penny earned.

If my economic crystal ball is accurate, the next few years will test the mettle of all of us who are concerned about the future of our children. Will we put political and personal differences aside and work together in behalf of our children? The research exists that informs us what our schools need to do to raise standards. The models of success are out there. At times of economic plenty we have demonstrated we don’t know how to effectively use all the money at our disposal to restructure our schools. Perhaps now that money will be in short supply, we can demonstrate that spending the available money wisely is more important than how much money is available.

Make no mistake: you do not get a stock market slide of this magnitude and duration without a subsequent major impact on the economy. The markets are talking. Is anyone listening?

(Editor’s Note: During four years at college, earning a degree in public relations, I received an F in one course – “Beginning Economics”. Also, during four years in college, I received only one A. Would you care to guess the subject?)

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

A recent local news article reported that a 17 year old boy, convicted of a 3rd degree robbery charge, chose to spend a year in prison rather than enter a drug treatment program. The judge had given the young man a choice and his attorney had recommended the treatment program.

The youth’s father was quoted as saying that he supported his son’s resistance to treatment because the boy had used marijuana just three times in his life and he didn’t need help. “I mean, he smoked a little grass, sir,” the father told the judge. “He don’t have a drug problem. I’ve been in rehab, sir, and they say marijuana aint addictive.”

The judge responded that during his 17 years on the bench he had seen families wrecked and people lose their jobs and get arrested for stealing because of marijuana use. “I mean their brains are fried, to put it bluntly. It may not be addictive, but their lives are certainly a mess because they smoked marijuana, and I’ll throw alcohol in there as well. Once is too many,” the judge said. “I’m not looking to put people in jail, believe me. I just don’t want to see you back here.”

Reading the father’s comments, it is clear why the son has problems with the law. It causes me to reflect on the number of teachers who bemoan the lack of parental support when they try to administer discipline. How do we align the schools, courts and parents in support of effective disciplinary practices with our children?

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.