A Report To The Community: RCSD Suspension Policy And Underlying Issues
Sunday, November 30th, 2008With regard to the recent uproar regarding Rochester City School District (RCSD) Superintendent, Mr. Jean Claude Brizard’s new in-school suspension policy — a very
important article written by Ms. Erica Bryant was published in the Democrat and Chronicle on11/26/08. The article can be accessed at the link below:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com:80/article/20081126/NEWS01/811260368/1002/NEWS
It is doubtful that the accompanying headline for the above referenced news story was developed by Ms. Bryant, i.e. ‘Suspension program ideal for some city schools.’ While the substance of Ms. Bryant’s article is excellent — the headline misses the point, and intentionally or unintentionally — represents a distortion of reality. That is to say, it is highly unlikely that the same suspension policy, which is reportedly “ideal for some city schools” — is (in and of itself) solely responsible for an “increase in problems” at other city schools. That idea clearly is not logical.
There are numerous, critically important differences between city schools where the new suspension policy is working well (apparently, such as Dr. Freddie Thomas High
School), and those where it is not working (such as East High School). One of the most important differences is that in some cases (such as Dr. Freddie Thomas) —
administrators, teachers, and support staff have obviously decided to work collectively and collaboratively in a process aimed at supporting student’s complex needs — while at the same time, attempting to help guide them, and correct their inappropriate behaviors. On the other hand, there are labor-union-strongholds (such as East High School), in which many teachers in particular are stuck in the status-quo rut of doing what they have always done — at least since the time that such schools became predominantly populated by children of color, i.e. tossing disruptive students out of school (apparently with little or no concern regarding ultimate results) — often jail, prison, and sometimes early death.
As it relates to Ms. Bryant’s article, she discussed a Dr. Freddie Thomas student who chose in-school suspension, as opposed to being in “regular classes.” It is very important to pay close attention to the reason that the above referenced student cited regarding her choice. She was quoted as clearly stating that, being assigned to in-school suspension meant that she could “get [her] work done.” This is important and instructive.
Anytime students are requesting or volunteering to be placed in in-school suspension, we should automatically ask why? In this particular case, and apparently in other cases at Freddie Thomas, the reason why is obviously because no-nonsense educators such as Mr. Avery Blackman and others have apparently developed a relevant, structured environment, in which teaching and learning is occurring, and perhaps most importantly, in which (based on information in Ms. Bryant’s article) — the definitions of knowledge and learning have been broadened beyond traditional, standardized English, Math, Science and Social Studies instruction and assignments (the cognitive domain), and apparently includes both the affective and functional domains. Noted educators Dr. Nathan Hare and Dr. Julia Hare emphasized the importance of the later referenced instructional approach nearly twenty (20) years ago. They wrote about the need for urban educators in particular to “bear in mind that education consists of three main categories: 1) cognitive (acquisition of knowledge, of information and skills, the preoccupation of education in modern and postmodern society); 2) affective (knowledge of self); and 3) functional or socio-cultural (knowledge of the social terrain or manipulation of cognitive and affective knowledge for the advancement of self, community and society). What has been neglected most starkly in the education of inner city children is the affective — and secondarily, the functional – while we narrowly concentrate on the cognitive, predictably without success.”
In addition to the example outlined above, there are other city schools in which students intentionally engage in behaviors that they know will land them in in-school suspension rooms. However, in many cases such students’ actions are based on all the wrong reasons. That is, they view in-school suspension rooms as places where they don’t have to do much, except hang out, socialize, sleep, etc… My point is that, it is vitally important for in-school suspension rooms to be tightly structured (not exclusively in a disciplinary sense), but programmatically as well, and it is equally important, if not more so, to be very strategic relative to choosing in-school suspension staff.
If we turn to some of the anti-in-school suspension arguments noted in Ms. Bryant’s article, there are many outstanding contradictions. For example, not only is it doubtful, but it is actually a ludicrous thought that “the [new suspension] rule has [in and of itself] created chaos at some schools, allowing disruptive students to run wild with impunity.” If students are running wild now (after establishment of the new suspension policy) — then we can bet with certainty — that they were running wild before the policy existed. Policies (in and of themselves) don’t cause or allow students to “run wild” — people do, which is what many, including this writer, suspect is happening at East High School.
Another blatant contradiction is that, in the process of leading East High School’s protesting teachers, Adam Urbanski (president of the Rochester teachers’ union), is not
convincing regarding interest in helping to produce a permanent (as opposed to a quick-fix, teacher-centered) solution. One important factor that makes his arguments less than convincing is intentional, calculated use of inaccurate, inflammatory, potentially inciting, rhetorical language. For example, Urbanski knows full well that it is not possible for “principals and teachers to develop their own [in-school suspension] programs, [especially of the magnitude at Freddie Thomas] — without [at least some degree of] Central Office support.” That is, with regard to implementing an in-school suspension plan or program — it is not reasonable to believe that the principal at Freddie Thomas (for example), or at any other RCSD school would have proceeded without having a discussion with her/his Central Office supervisor — the latter of whom would likely communicate with the Superintendent, prior to giving the “green light.” Thus, the hyper-rhetorical idea that in-school suspension is “working at some schools, not because of the district [administration], but despite the district”— is fundamentally flawed. It’s as if Urbanski would have the public believe that there is no protocol relative to relationships between Central Office and school buildings.
Reference
Hare, Nathan, Hare, Julia, The Miseducation of The Black Child, San Francisco,
California, Banneker Books (1991)
If it wasn’t so serious and so sad, the idea would be laughable that “at East High teachers described students escaping [escaping?] from ISS [In-School Suspension] rooms, roaming the halls, disrupting other classes and causing trouble.” If students are able to “escape” from ISS rooms, then surely they were also able to “escape” from traditional classrooms (prior to the new ISS policy), which logically raises the question: Why weren’t there massive teacher complaints and protests before now? The answer really is quite simple. In the past, as teacher-generated, written disciplinary referrals piled up on a daily basis, they represented the fuel behind very familiar words to disruptive students: ‘You’re out of here for 5 days.’ After the infamous 5-day, “short-term” suspensions, students would return and the revolving-door suspension practice would resume, i.e. piling up of daily referrals; 5 days off; return, etc… — until often, students either drop out and/or end up in trouble with the law, in jail, in prison, or, to borrow a phrase from the Freddie Thomas student mentioned above, “in the graveyard.” It is vitally important to understand the increased likelihood and the connection between involvement in illegal activities and/or ending up in life-threatening situations — while serving out of school suspension. Think in terms of the euphemism that an idle mind is the devils workshop. There is a definite link, and of course this aspect of the problem and issue is potentially even more dangerous and harmful than missed instruction. With regard to the latter point, in essence, it is largely the former revolving-door suspension policy and practice outlined
above, which explains at least 55,000 hours of lost instructional time during 2007-08, and only God knows how many lost hours prior to 07-08. This is the former reality that Superintendent Brizard has declared — must end!
One statement in Ms. Bryant’s article, which was attributed to Adam Urbanski, is absolutely correct. That is, “the district needs more resources and options.” If we are to
be successful in helping massive numbers of our students effectively deal with complex issues and problems underlying inappropriate behavior, which, for all practical intents and purposes, blocks teaching and learning — we must develop and implement fundamentally different (from traditional schools and settings) types of alternative
schools, programs, and educational approaches, which if done correctly, represents a very expensive proposition. Thus, it is also necessary to grapple, especially during current, dire economic conditions, with the critically important question: Where will the much-needed, additional resources come from? One overdue, wise idea is to thoroughly evaluate (down to the last penny) the real, measurable impact of every single existing RCSD-funded program that supposedly represents support (beyond the classroom) relative to helping RCSD students, parents, teachers, administrators and support staff deal with problems and issues that impede learning for our students. There is also a need to thoroughly evaluate every single RCSD-funded initiative and program, including those that are administered by various consultants and agencies, which supposedly enhance learning opportunities. I am totally confident that such thorough evaluations will reveal lots of programs that have little or no real utility or significant impact. Those represent resources that need to be redirected (now) into new, innovative, alternative schools, programs and approaches. A tiny example is, if as reported, “several home hospital teachers, who used to teach suspended students, have behavioral modification strategies that work [and want] to work one-on-one” with our most challenging students — they should probably be incorporated into new alternative schools and programs. Surely such teachers would agree that in order for their “behavioral modification strategies [to] work” — students don’t have to be sitting at home on suspension. Most importantly, with regard to resources and expense, there is a need to keep uppermost in our minds the undeniable fact that we can find ways to pay now, or we will definitely pay later!
Ms. Bryant reported that Adam Urbanski has submitted a “10-point proposal for improving in-school suspension.” If his idea, which is reportedly included in the 10-point
proposal, regarding “in-school suspension automatically incorporating after school detention that would include extra academic help,” is adopted — then it ought to be
understood from the start that staying after school to provide “extra academic help” is already part of teachers’ professional duties and obligations. That is to say — such after school arrangements should not result in new positions or additional pay.
Lastly, it is the hope of many, especially in light of the largest, predominantly white, middle class, suburban-dwelling, RCSD teachers’ protest (since the time of Rochester’s last black Superintendent, Dr. Clifford Janey) — that Superintendent Brizard and the Rochester Board of Education will seize the opportunity at hand — to engage in public dialogue with RCSD parents, guardians, students, and members of the larger Rochester community, particularly those within the sectors in which the vast majority of our students and parents live.
As it relates to the Superintendent’s new suspension policy, now that anyone who has been paying attention has heard from the darlings of major media (Urbanski and hordes of teachers) — the vast majority of whom don’t live or spend any significant amounts of time (beyond their work day) in the neighborhoods that the overwhelming majority of their students come from, and whom (according to Rochester Board of Education Commissioner Willa Powell) displayed “mob-like” behavior at the November 20th Rochester Board of Education meeting — it is very important that a public venue is established — in which we can hear from those who are closest to our students, and most vested in their well being and futures.
Howard J. Eagle
November 30, 2008