10 ms·

My solution? Make attendance voluntary by abolishing truancy laws. Disruptive students don't want to be there, and forcing them to go doesn't teach them anythin

• swift 16y ago
  I couldn't concur more; some students are just not mentally or emotionally prepared for school. Forcing them to attend is stressful for them and for the people around them. The ideal solution, to me, would be two-pronged: 1. Stop forcing people who don't want to go to school to be there. 2. Make it easy for people to change their minds and return to school later. I think #2 is absolutely necessary if #1 is to be implemented. Appropriate programs would have to be available for older students to continue their education, and they'd have to be available on a subsidized basis. My only concern about this whole line of thinking is the issue of parents forcing their children to leave school against their will and work instead. I haven't been able to come up with a convincing solution to that problem yet. I feel certain that the current system is undesirable, though.
  • ZachPruckowski 16y ago
    There is no valid solution for #2. Even for someone with a genius-level IQ and a desire to learn, making up for a few missed weeks of school is challenging. Making up a few months is basically impossible, especially if you're the type who was pre-disposed to drop out in the first place. With intensive one-on-one tutoring maybe, but that's not realistic budget-wise. And nobody is going to want to go back and be the 17-year-old in 9th grade with a bunch of 14-year-olds, because it's embarrassing (and if you think you can change the dynamic of teenagers teasing each other, good luck).
• pavel_lishin 16y ago
  The problem is that some students could do fine in a structured environment - but at the age of 13, would you have voluntarily chosen to go to school? I'd be sitting at home, learning to program and losing what little social development I had at school. :)
• mynameishere 16y ago
  I didn't downmod you, but it wouldn't work. It's a typical engineer's solution, you know? Sure, if you have 1 bad nut in a collection of 10 nuts, you just throw it away. But that's politically impossible with humans. The newspapers and the electorate would destroy anyone who tried it. At best you might be able to steer the no-goodnicks into the basement for "special" classes, but you could never, ever make your real intentions known, and so you could never have a genuinely effective system for filtering. The old-style solution was much simpler: The principal beat the kid. The kid would go home, and father would beat him a second time. This also doesn't work for similar reasons.
  • watchandwait 16y ago
    I was paddled in public school and I'd say that works pretty well for maintaining order.
    • swift 16y ago
      I am sorry to hear you had that experience. I do not approve of running a school, or any organization, based on fear, much less the threat of physical violence. Is this something that would be appropriate for the adult world? I don't think so. We shouldn't beat children just because they're smaller than us and can't fight back.
      • krakensden 16y ago
        Actually, you shouldn't beat children because they /can/ fight back. If you re-instated corporal punishment, schools in bad areas would be ridiculous almost immediately, and as soon as you get an out-of-control adult or a victimized-feeling student, someone is going to get a gun from their older cousin. Besides, when was the last time you were in a high school? The teachers are mostly older women, who most definitely cannot afford to play a game of physical escalation with teenage boys.
        • jordan0day 16y ago
          Actually I'd be curious to see what would happen if corporal punishment was re-instated. I think your scenario derives from a hyperbolic world presented to us by a hype-machine media. I'm not sure it's really accurate. My hypothesis would be that it would in fact cut down on problems, though I won't deny that one or a few incidents like what you posit could happen. Truly "rotten apples", few in number as they may be, are in every part of the population. This is also why re-instating corporal punishment would be extra-hard -- there will be "rotten apples" doling it out, too. Also, to address your second point, when I was in elementary school and a few kids did receive corporal punishment, it was always meted out by a principal, and not directly by the teacher.
• frossie 16y ago
  Make attendance voluntary by abolishing truancy laws I didn't downvote you, but I strongly disagree. I personally don't want to live in a society full of kids (did you see his percentages - up to 25%!!) that are considered unmanageable at age 12. If they are unmanageable at age 12, what do you think they are going to be at age 25? Angry, illiterate, jobless oh and yeah, still unmanageable. Or, in jail and unmanageable. Can you build enough jails for 25% of the population? There are no easy answers to the problems of universal education, but let's not forget why it is there in the first place.
  • kenjackson 16y ago
    I agree. I suspect the problem is these children were disruptive at age 8 and no one did anything. I don't think letting a 12 year old decide they don't have to go to school is the answer. But I do think they should not be allowed to disrupt the education of others. There are some intereting alternative schools that may be a way to tackle the issue. It's not an easy problem. With that said, I think what this essay addresses, while seemingly obvious, is one of the biggest problems we face, and education reform generally doesn't mention it. And I do speculate it hides one of the reasons why places like Promise Academy do so well. The students, even from broken homes, who go there are strongly pushed by mothers (or grandmothers) that this is special place. The expectation of good behavior is much higher there.
    • ryanwaggoner 16y ago
      None of the students at Promise Academy have supportive fathers or grandfathers?
      • moultano 16y ago
        For a poor black child to have a father in the home is currently atypical: http://www.theroot.com/buzz/72-percent-african-american-children-born-unwed-mothers http://www.theroot.com/buzz/72-percent-african-american-chil...
        • 16y ago
• pangram 16y ago
  It's an interesting position, but may still leave you with the same problem. A fair proportion of the disruptive students actually want to be at school (since that's where everyone else is) -- so even if you make it voluntary you will still get students being disruptive. In the end you still come to the conclusion that you have to enforce the rules to make education effective. (Also, anyone who's ever watched a normally well-behaved classroom in the hands of an inexperienced substitute can believe that discipline makes a difference!)
• jmm 16y ago
  Ha. The pickle here is that we (the government, the bleeding hearts, those capable of compassion) have to acknowledge that these kids were dealt a pretty bad hand, and that they are, after all, still kids. So we owe them a fair shot and some patience -- it's not acceptable to give up on them as products of the system. Because in one way or another we're part of the system. And they're kids. My sister participated in the New York Teaching Fellows program (similar to TFA) and worked in Spanish Harlem and her experience was much the same as the author's. So I'm not saying the current situation and the current programs are ideal or well managed, but there are interesting hope-inducing projects and people out there. p.s. Go watch season 4 of The Wire and see if it tugs at your heartstrings a bit. It also paints a good picture of how screwed up the school system itself is in poor urban communities. Not to mention how pedogogical innovation is treated in the academic setting... p.p.s. If you're curious about the role of academic philanthropy and the Broad Foundation which the author mentions, have a read: http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781 http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781 . I haven't read a counterpoint to that piece yet, so I'm not sure how well the criticisms stand up.
  • protomyth 16y ago
    Up to what age do you consider them "just kids"?
    • deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    • jmm 16y ago
      Just because the line is fuzzy doesn't mean there isn't one. (I'm not sure if you're trying to weaken my argument by challenging the idea of childhood altogether (which would be weird), or if you're just curious. If it's the former, we're probably not going to have a productive discussion. If it's the latter, I'm open to suggestions, though it probably deserves the attention of an educational psychologist or someone like that.)
      • protomyth 16y ago
• jellicle 16y ago
  In what way would it help society to have more uneducated young people hanging around?
  • swift 16y ago
    It doesn't seem obvious to me at all that forcing kids to attend school against their will results in them becoming "educated" in any meaningful sense.
    • tedunangst 16y ago
      Forcing them to attend school doesn't educate them, but it does reduce the number of young people "hanging around", which probably has benefits all on its own.
      • krakensden 16y ago
        That's true, but mixing daycare and schooling often shortchanges the latter.
    • seriesoftubes 16y ago
      I agree--especially when you're talking about forcing bad kids to attend school against their will. The bad kids in urban schools wind up not learning jack, even if they don't drop out. I know this because I've taught 12th graders in a failing urban school where the graduation rate < 50%. Even worse, forcing bad kids to attend school against their will diminishes the quality of good kids' educations. The good kids are the ones whose powerful minds actually stand a chance of improving civilization in big ways. Not saying I was a great, great student (I was in the top 3% of a huge public HS, but plenty of other kids were smarter than me), but if I had known how badly I was getting screwed over by taking classes with bullies/people who did not want to learn anything in school except that Jesus is God and every non-Christian is going to Hell, I would've tried to switch schools at a very young age. If I only knew then what I know now...
    • jrwoodruff 16y ago
      It does mean, hopefully, that they continue to be exposed to new information and new people and that they may, should they choose, decide to take education seriously at any point with relatively little difficulty. Dropping out makes it much, much more difficult to return, or even to decide to return.
• bartonfink 16y ago
  Just to play devil's advocate, if you remove truancy laws, aren't you effectively turning disruptive students in a semi-controlled environment into disruptive people at large? It's not as if most of these kids are full of potential and just aren't getting reached by their teachers or schools. I bet that the kid who threatens to beat his teacher's bitch-ass is probably going to continue to behave unacceptably outside the classroom if you remove the expectation that they have to stay there. How do you manage this new source of unacceptable behavior that was previously contained in schools? Do kids who would have been truant give up some of the legal protections they enjoy as minors? Do we set up some sort of public "work camp" in lieu of schools for kids who aren't manageable in the classroom? It's not as if these kids have parents who will take responsible custody for them - that's a huge part of the problem. I'm not sure what the best answer for society is, but I'm not sure you're quite there with your suggestion. I'm not saying that your idea doesn't have some merit, and I agree that there are good kids getting screwed because they are stuck in crappy schools. But I think that unleashing the worst of that demographic from the only "responsibility" they might have is a dangerous idea.
• Splines 16y ago
  Students don't want to be there for a variety of reasons. I agree with you - if they don't want to be there, then don't force them. The solution isn't to kick them out, though - give them alternative environments for education. Some students are frustrated at the material, having a poor foundation. Allow these students a gracious way of catching up, out of sight of their peers that are ahead. Some students would rather learn something hands-on. Let these students build something with their hands, and learn a trade. I'm certain that I'm mischaracterizing why kids are misbehaving in class, but what I am sure about is that the standard method of bucketing 30 kids into the same class, and expecting them to learn the same material at the same pace does a disservice to them and the teachers. I was a math tutor in my younger years, and all too often I saw how many kids were left behind (even in the suburbs). Alternatively, many kids were ahead of their grade level and boredom became inevitable.
• davidsiems 16y ago
  While I agree that attendance should be voluntary this solution doesn't address the whole problem. Part of the problem is that education is not valued - neither by the kids, nor their parents. As a culture we need to make sure education is valued across the board. Another part of the problem is that once these kids are out of school they'll be causing trouble at home or in their neighborhoods. I think a better plan would be the following: - Make attendance voluntary, but put programs in place that allow people to return to school and learn regardless of their age. - Put trade schools in place that teach practical skills quickly. This way even if you're not cut out for school, at least you can learn a skill that can make you some money. A lot of these kids are coming from low income families. - Make parents responsible for their kids. Right now a lot of parents treat school as daycare for their kids, they don't care what happens there as long as the kids aren't at home. Schools need to be able to expel and discipline kids without being fiscally punished. (either by lawsuit or losing funding because of poor performance) Long term maxharris is absolutely right, you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. It doesn't work. We need a cultural shift that places education at the top of the list. And we need political leaders who are willing to risk their necks and hold parents accountable instead of throwing money and bad policy at the problem.
  • kijinbear 16y ago
    > Make parents responsible for their kids. Right now a lot of parents treat school as daycare for their kids, they don't care what happens there as long as the kids aren't at home. Absolutely agreed. There's very little that a school can do for a kid if the parents don't care what the kid does at school. I'm not sure the solution needs to involve expulsions, but parents definitely need to have a greater responsibility in their children's education. You can't just drop your kid off at school and mind your own business. If greater parental involvement in education means that one of the parents can't have a full time job and save money for college, so be it. Especially if you're already middle-class! I'd much rather have a caring parent than an extra vacation. Well raised kids should be able to pay for college on their own, anyway.
    • kleinsch 16y ago
      In most Teach for America schools, the choice for some families isn't between parents working to pay for college vs being involved in their child's school. It's a choice between parents working vs the family not eating. When the parents are struggling with subsistence, it's not surprising that they're less concerned with their kids grades.
• dkarl 16y ago
  Nobody can be forced to think, but they can be forced to do structured exercises that build knowledge and cognitive skills, which is what school is actually for. The kids from rich suburban schools who learn to read and write and get into selective universities aren't any more intellectually curious than other kids; they just accept the need to jump through hoops at school. They might seem a little more intellectually curious because their hoop-jumping gives them the intellectual tools needed to appreciate a broader variety of interesting things than their poor inner-city counterparts do, but it is all based on years of spending hours a day doing exercises that on any given day they would choose not to do if they were not driven by parental expectations and school discipline.
• michaelchisari 16y ago
  From my knowledge of radical education approaches like Summerhill or Ferrer's Modern School, I would agree with that, with one caveat: Students don't have to attend class. They just have to go to school. They can choose, on a daily basis, what class they want to be in. If they disrupt, they're kicked out of class for the day, since attendance at that class is a voluntary association. To get credit and a grade for a class, you have to complete X homework assignments and pass Y amount of tests. If a kid decides they wants to hang out all day in the cafeteria, good for them. Teachers might want to check in on them and see why or offer books or computer access to do some self-education. You'd also want to diversify the classes if possible. Add classes in video game design, automotive engineering, etc. Make these classes enticing, and hard. Rope the kids in to hard classes by making them seem like blow-offs. But most of all, let the kid choose to learn, and you have a lot more power over the kids who come in just to disrupt. You also have the added social pressure of the other kids, who will recognize that the disruptors don't have to be there and are only ruining it for everyone. Never underestimate the motivating power of boredom.
  • thebigredjay 16y ago
    QFT "Never underestimate the motivating power of boredom."
  • jrwoodruff 16y ago
    I would love to see this concept implemented in an urban setting, under the context of a general education school (rather than a magnate, etc.). While I think it would work for some, I suspect many of these disruptive children probably have major family issues that make it difficult or impossible for them to focus on learning. See: Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It would certainly be a good starting point though. Something must change, and mandatory testing changes nothing.
    • eli 16y ago
      The Brooklyn Free School is relatively diverse, no? (Well, as far as anarchist schooling goes, anyway)
  • 16y ago
• timwiseman 16y ago
  I must respectfully disagree, for a few somewhat related reasons. First, for a democracy to function, the voters need to be at least sufficiently educated to understand the issues. Second, for an advanced capitalistic society with heavy automation to function, the work force needs to be at least sufficiently educated to handle nontrivial jobs. And third, minors, lacking in experience, often make decisions that their older self would regret. Right or wrong our society tries to protect them against at least the worst of these bad decisions. This is precisely why we permit minors to rescind contracts (under most circumstances). Now, with all that said, I think our society might benefit from offering trade schools/apprenticeships more readily and earlier in the educational system then it currently does, given consent of both the minor and the gaurdian. This may prove more useful to many of them then an academic course that is largely geared towards the college admissions process.
  • awt 16y ago
    Your first point is key, and is what ultimately took me off the fence as to whether or not compulsory education is necessary. I feel like kids also don't need to be in school for 12+ years to only be qualified to work at Walmart. Let's shorten the tube and let people feel valuable to society at an earlier age.
• aik 16y ago
  I don't believe making it voluntary would be the solution, though it would for sure unmask the root problem better. The unfortunate thing about this situation is that I don't believe there is an easy and quick answer. I believe the bad behavior is largely caused by 2 things: 1. Bad influences from the community - parents, siblings, friends, and possibly surrounding media/entertainment. 2. The school system. More than for anyone else, the way the school is structured is (clearly) ineffective for these struggling students. Even if there were real disciplinary actions taken, the methods of disciplining (that I have observed anyway) are often out-of-date. Our understanding of behavior change has increased greatly in the past several years and needs to be more widely understood. Solutions I see: a. Quit making a large part of school so incredibly boring and seemingly pointless. Spend A LOT more time focusing on topics closer to what students care about (and should care about). b. Behavior issues will happen and are normal. Work on changing bad behaviors by understanding how the environment shapes behaviors. Understand that behavior change is more likely to happen when new behaviors are supported/introduced/allowed to thrive, rather than continuously trying to suppress current behaviors -- there's a reason for those bad behaviors existing in the first place, you can't ignore them. Understand how incredibly ineffective abstract commands are ("don't be bad" as an extreme example), and fear tactics. c. Bad behaviors are often caused by bad influences in the community (issue #1 from above). Changing the community behaviors changes the student behaviors (perhaps over long periods of time). I realize this is difficult, however very essential.
• robryan 16y ago
  I'd keep attendance compulsory but allow a teacher to remove someone from class for mucking up. I don't think removing them from the system completely is the answer but I equally don't think most of teachers time should be taken up dealing with the trouble makers. I'd say if a teacher felt it necessary remove as many in the class as they had to to make a goo learning environment, these could be just for the lesson but could be longer breaks if the kid continued to play up.
• jseliger 16y ago
  "My solution? Make attendance voluntary by abolishing truancy laws." I agree with you in theory, but in practice this doesn't seem to work out so well. Look, for example, at the chapter in Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational: about prebinding commitments and universities. In one experiment, he (and his co-authors) took a group of similar classes and divided them in threes: one group was told that it could turn in three papers whenever each member wanted; another group was told it could pick due dates; and the third group was given conventional due dates spaced over the course of the semester. The last group did the best, gradwise; the second did reasonably well too, since most students picked conventional due dates; and the first did by far the worst. The lesson: people are often bad at committing to things. I've observed the same effect teaching freshman composition at the University of Arizona. I used to conduct many more experiments by ranging the number of mandatory drafts: sometimes I'd require as few as one, and sometimes as many as five. The more drafts, the better papers tended to be. Even when I only required one, I would tell students they should do at least four to five on their own, with editing from other students, the writing center, etc. Few did. They (mostly) got bad grades and then resented me for it. Solution: require more drafts. EDITED TO ADD: I would also say that it's relatively easy to advocate no truancy laws on Hacker News (and don't such laws only apply up to 16?); if you were actually a school principal or district superintendent who did, you would probably be fired or voted out of office if such a policy were implemented and you or your community had to face the consequences of it.
  • maxharris 16y ago
    Just what are these supposedly negative consequences of abolishing truancy laws? The disruptive students mentioned in the article didn't learn anything in school.
    • bzbarsky 16y ago
      The negative consequence would be to have these teenagers free to go about town during the day raising hell. Clearly not a problem for the school itself. But it suddenly reminds everyone else that these kids exist, and we can't have that, right?
• sidek 16y ago
  I disagree. Schools do function as low-security prisons, and that is important to society (This point can be disagreed on, but I do not want to make a long post about why this is my stance and, I think, the better one.). To stop disruption, one should look at streaming by achievement as an option. This is already widely done in High School, and could be expanded to middle school with enough ease. Kids who are overly disruptive will disrupt only other disruptors ( and those who do badly in their classes... these people will be failed, but I look at it as for the greater good.). Actually, my home province has this- to some extent. It's called the "Knowledge and Employability" program. I don't know much about it, but it seems to have been moderately successful.