I had read the Quillette article and wondered whether to comment. Then it was featured over at Maggie's and I thought I'd better have a go. My comment over at MF:
"I don't know about specific implementation in schools, but "getting the potential audience out of the way" is a good strategy on a psych ward, particularly with teenagers. People calm down quicker when there's no one to show off for. That's not just theory. Once you get used to implementing it, it works quickly.
It's less-effective but still better than other interventions with the kids who are out-of-control for neurological reasons, who don't have an effective 'off'' switch of their own. More people looking at them puts more energy into their system."
I honestly don't know what is best in schools. It's not my field. I do know that the older forms of discipline work better on kids who are already well-behaved. Of course, pretty much anything works on them. Because most people who are reading about educational practices online and commented on blog sites about them were better behaved and better students than average, their memories of what worked do not generalise as well as they suppose. Also, the special needs children were largely not in public school in my day, and particularly in high school, they dropped out or got expelled pretty early. That removes them from both the discipline samples then, and our memory samples now.
4 comments:
"I don't know about specific implementation in schools, but "getting the potential audience out of the way" is a good strategy on a psych ward, particularly with teenagers. People calm down quicker when there's no one to show off for. That's not just theory. Once you get used to implementing it, it works quickly.
There is another way of looking at it. The misbehaving student is implicitly told that he has the power to empty out the classroom, which is somewhat empowering, I would think. (As most misbehaving students are male, I view "he" as correct.)
Clearing the classroom is disruptive to the rest of the class, as their lesson is interrupted. OTOH, keeping the disruptive student in the class is also interrupting the class.
The Quillette article informs that "There isn’t yet any comprehensive national data about the use of room clears." Nor is there any data about the efficacy of room clears. This brings up a recurring problem with education policy: the massive introduction of a policy fad before it has been tested. (I would consider implementing room clearing in Oregon statewide as constituting "massive introduction.")
Invariably, we find out some years later that the great new untested policy fad doesn't stand up to research. No problem. A new untested policy fad will arise in its place. The king is dead, long live the king.
My experience is that the most effective way of dealing with disruptive students is to get rid of them. Sad, but true. But that takes time. Don't do anything drastic with the student- just write a description of what he did for the administration.
On a psych ward, at any rate, the feel of control of clearing the room is less than the joy of being the center. This is probably because these are people who require immediate gratification, so the sense of power looking back on it is not so great. However, after many repetitions the smarter children will hit upon ways of undermining whatever strategy adults use, so bragging that they cleared the room is certainly possible.
I have no doubt that this technique works in certain circumstances. My problem with it is that it doesn't define what occurs with the "removed" audience. Where do they go? Is an empty classroom available where they can continue a lesson? Or are they shuffled off to the gym to a non-structured class period? I think they are still the punished ones.
This is an example of isolation of the disruptive one with a big twist. It won't hold up in public schools.
AVI -- I think it would be entirely appropriate to treat 6-11 grades as psych wards. Or as an 'educator' once told me -- deep-freeze them between ages 13 and 18.
Post a Comment