School Guidance, Common Core & the Orwellian State

www.treehouseletter.com ^ | September 2014 | M.B. Shattan

[armytrackgirl]

Our Middle School principal sent guidance on the topic of town safety: students are discouraged from walking into town after school. He shares the numbers and concludes:

"Anyway you “do the math”, you can calculate that a large number of unsupervised middle school aged students in town is not an emotionally or physically safe situation." (See full excerpt below)

Here’s the principal’s argument.

Assume 3 out of 10 of the 625 upper division students walk to town: 180-190 students in town

Assume 2 out of 10 of the 625 lower division students walk to town: 150 students in town

Estimate: 350 students in town by 3:15 pm

(This may be Common Core math, but when I “do the math” I come up with 312.5 students. The 2 out of 10 of the 625 students for lower division amounts to 20% of 625, or 125, NOT 150 . Using this data 187.5 +125 is 312.5 students. Even if you skipped over the percentage calculations, 190 and 150 is 340, NOT 350. But I confess I’m not a Common Core graduate.)

Large groups of unsupervised students = not emotionally or physically safe

Large groups = not careful about personal safety

Students observed darting in and out of traffic

Students are rude to students, storeowners, others

Conclusion: Students should only walk into town if supervised by an adult or they are attending a supervised activity.

This is the truly disturbing part.

"If you act inappropriately outside of school, you can still be given school disciplinary consequences since your actions may be contributing to another student feeling emotionally or physically unsafe afterward at school."

I’ve read this sentence several times and realized it must reflect Common Core English. I highlighted it in different colors to help readers understand it.

The sentence has two subordinate or conditional clauses in blue; the first begins with If and the last begins with since. If that’s not muddy enough, then contrast the end of both clauses outside of school and at school. Confused yet?

The main clause is “you can still be given school disciplinary consequences” and that part I think I understand, but it depends on outside acts and whether those acts make another feel unsafe at school.

Did you follow?

Notice the use of the passive voice: students are discouraged and you can still be given school disciplinary consequences. Where do we see this type of language? You guessed it. Politicians. It’s ironic because English teachers instruct students to use the active voice. This is what the active voice looks like: Principal Bob discourages students from walking into town and we will punish students.

Why use the active voice? It assigns ownership to the subject doing the action. Perhaps administrators don’t want to take ownership for this, so they use students as the subjects. It’s the student who is discouraged and given discipline. How convenient that the school isn’t in this at all.

And what does it mean to be given school disciplinary consequences? Students receive discipline and punishment and these are the consequences of bad behavior. They aren’t given consequences; they suffer the consequences of bad behavior. Meanwhile the rest of us suffer from Common Core English and Common Core Math.

There’s more.

Any behavior that causes interference to another student’s right to learn at School X is subject to school discipline and potentially, referral to the local police.

School Resource Officer, John Doe, will be observing the downtown activity this afternoon and will share those observations with the dept. and school.

The police WILL be involved. Officer Doe will observe and report observations to the police department AND the school!

Let’s stop and consider this guidance.

The school is telling us what our children should be doing when they are not in school. The police will observe them AND the police will “share those observations” with the school. The school will take necessary disciplinary measures if it doesn’t approve of that behavior. This is not just a letter, all of it except the Officer Doe sentence is in the Student Handbook, a booklet which students and parents are required to read and sign.

I asked a local store owner to read the excerpt.

“I don’t agree with this. I strongly disagree with this,” she said.

The owner said kids come in to town and try clothes on, put things on lay-away. On a rare occasion she might ask them to quiet down, and they do so. They’re good kids. She said it’s good business for the town because students spend money.

Here are the problems with this Middle School’s guidance.

•The school should not attempt to override a parent’s choice to allow their child to walk to town alone

•This should not be in the Student Handbook

•The school does not have the right to discipline a student for behavior outside of school

•Coordinating with police about student activity outside of school is outside the school’s sphere of control

•Police reporting of a child’s behavior off school property after dismissal should be with the parents, NOT the school

The school’s argument is bogus.

They’ve committed fallacies of relevance, presumption, and clarity. They presume that all students will do what a few might do; they attribute crowd behavior to the individual. They presume businesses do not want students in town. The conclusions are unsupported and the writing is confusing.

A principal should provide guidance and report problems to parents. Parents appreciate such involvement. I happen to like this principal and his intentions are good, but this type of guidance has become so commonplace we don’t give it a second thought.

Inclusion in the Student Handbook, telling parents what choices to make, punishing students for actions outside of school, and worst of all, asking the police to take on the role of Big Brother to watch over our children and report back to the school and not the parent, are egregious violations of our basic freedoms.

I’m living in an Orwellian novel.

Read the letter in full, http://treehouseletter.com/2014/09/23/school-guidance-common-core-the-orwellian-state/

[Sherman Logan]

Back when I was in school, admittedly quite a long time ago, the school could discipline you for anything you did between when you left home in the morning and returned home after school. Or possibly went to work or some other location where you obviously weren’t “in transit” anymore.

Not saying I necessarily agree with this policy, but it certainly isn’t completely new.

[donna]

When I was a kid, every home had a mother waiting and if any kid was 10 minutes late they had to explain themselves.

Kids went home, had a snack, did their homework, ate dinner with mom AND dad, watched 1/2 hour of G-rated TV and went to bed.

Women are to blame for this mess.

[BwanaNdege]

It sounds to me like the Principal is trying to find a way to tell the students,

“Don’t go to down in a pack/mob because there is a strong tendency of young people in large groups to assume that they are individually invisible. They sometimes (often) turn off the training, moral restraint and common sense that their parents, community and the school system have worked to instill in them. They end up acting like idiots, fools or worse. Their ensuing behavior can cause embarrassment to themselves, their parents & the community. Sometimes it can lead to property damage, physical injury or even death.”

“I’d tell you what I really think, but the ACLU, the local hot-shot reporters and the school board legal adviser would have conniption-fit.”

“Have a nice day, get your homework done on time and, by-the-way, your dog called to say that he prefers Alpo or Kibbles n’ Bits to eating said homework.”

[armytrackgirl]

That may be true Sherman, but I doubt it involved a police officer sent to observe and share ‘reports’ on children with the school and the police dept, and not with the parent.

The math is wrong, the English confusing, and there is no logic to the argument. Sure, the principal may give guidance, but it should not be in the Handbook.