Introduction
In The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African-American Children, Ladson-Billings poses the question “Does Culture Matter?” Through a study of teachers who demonstrate culturally relevant teaching, she reveals the immense impact of culture on African-American student achievement and success in the classroom. In presenting the results of her study and describing the characteristics of culturally relevant teaching, Ladson-Billings sheds light on the importance of inclusion and connection- each member is valued and has a responsibility not only to themselves, but to their classroom and larger community. This level of accountability is one that drives classroom community and students’ willingness to exercise behaviors that sustain it.
In zero Tolerance, Michie explores school’s widespread adoption of zero tolerance policies in response to growing concerns around discipline and safety. In his narrative, Michie describes his experience as a teacher during the onset of such policies, including articles and stories that surfaced during that time regarding the impact of punitive discipline codes on students. Reflecting on both, Michie grows dissatisfied, viewing zero tolerance as a“simple fix to a complex problem.” In his work with a community Priest, Michie comes to understand that it is our responsibility as educators to serve our students and prepare them for life and the future. In so doing, Michie calls us to action that questions the use of such harsh and unforgiving policies and instead provide students with the space to reflect, learn from their mistakes, and move onward.
In Schools, Prisons, and Social Implications of Punishment: Rethinking Disciplinary Practices, Noguera examines the implications of schools’ disciplinary practices, particularly those serving minority and low-income students, in juxtaposition with the functions of prisons and the mission of education. Through observation and research he finds that schools’ “pattern of punishment” mirror those used in prisons in that they instinctively respond to students’ behavior rather than the factors that contribute to such behaviors. He strongly believes that this correlation feeds a cycle of recidivism by failing to combat resulting labels and meet the needs of students. In response, Noguera draws on the functions of schools and the mission of education, arguing for practices that support students’ character, ethical, and moral development as productive members of society.
In Understanding Youth: Adolescent development for educators, educators and psychologists Nakkula and Toshalis, discuss the crucial roles that schools and teachers play in adolescent development. Of particular intent and focus are the chapters on relational factors such as students’ self-perception of power, autonomy, and value which directly influence their willingness and desire to either accept or resist the structures in place. In an effort to promote a sense of acceptance and inclusion amongst students, Nakkula and Toshalis support the use of educational mentoring models that teach students about being in healthy relationships by focusing on educating “to care” and “through care”. Through the use of such models students develop skills such as collaboration, respect, and empathy which are essential to their success both inside and outside of school.
In one particular chapter of Middle and Secondary Classroom Management, Weinstein focuses on enhancing student motivation, discussing factors that influence motivation as well as actions that can be used to boost motivation. However, one of Weinstein’s areas of focus is around the use of rewards as a form of manipulation and control. Incorporating the work of Alfie Kohn, Weinstein suggests that through the use of rewards we actually inhibit students’ development of things such as self-regulation. This also holds true for punishments where undesirable behavior is constantly met with external reinforcement, superseding students’ self-reflection and consequent
internalization.
In light of all of this, I seek a resolution that will address the impact of currently used punitive structures on students’ behavior, providing some insight into alternative practices that are believed to warrant the change we desire. Hence, my inquiry question is formed:
What happens when I give my students the opportunity to reflect on their behavior that has been deemed undesirable?
In an environment such as that present at Mastery Shoemaker where “Excellence, No Excuses” is the motto of expectations, there is simply no in between, no room for disorder or disruption. Students are either rewarded for their adherence or reprimanded for their noncompliance in order to maintain the order of the school. However, more times than not, those reprimanded for disruptive behavior continue to challenge school structures, receiving increased levels of punishments and showing no signs of change. Unfortunately, this is a classical case for students, especially for those who already have a history of conflict with remaining within the schools boundaries and
expectations. Recidivism rates are high, as the same students are constantly being reprimanded.
As I continued to observe these things within my placement, I developed the notion that we had become so accustomed to some students’ behaviors and attitudes that in our generalization, we never really forced students’ into opportunities to actually reflect and reconsider. Rather than do what is in the best interest of the student, there is a “blind adherence to rules” (Michie, p. 8). As a result behaviors and attitudes have not only not changed, but they have been normalized. This lack of adaptation calls into question the effectiveness of punitive punishments in redirecting and ultimately deterring undesired behavior. Seeking more promising and permanent results, my inquiry explores the effects of restorative practices on students’ behavior that encourage reflection and self-redirection. As Kohn emphasizes “if we want youngsters to become self-regulating, responsible, caring individuals, we must abandon attempts at external control and provide students with the opportunities to develop competence, connection, and autonomy in caring classroom communities” (Weinstein, 2007, p. 206).
*Disclaimer: The purpose of this inquiry is not to bash or downplay all that Mastery Shoemaker has accomplished. I admire Mastery
Shoemaker's drive and dedication in providing a wealth of academic and extra-curricular support, opportunities, and experiences for its “underprivileged” and “at-risk” students. The purpose of this inquiry is to explore alternative approaches in responding to students behavior that support more reflective rather than punitive measures.
In zero Tolerance, Michie explores school’s widespread adoption of zero tolerance policies in response to growing concerns around discipline and safety. In his narrative, Michie describes his experience as a teacher during the onset of such policies, including articles and stories that surfaced during that time regarding the impact of punitive discipline codes on students. Reflecting on both, Michie grows dissatisfied, viewing zero tolerance as a“simple fix to a complex problem.” In his work with a community Priest, Michie comes to understand that it is our responsibility as educators to serve our students and prepare them for life and the future. In so doing, Michie calls us to action that questions the use of such harsh and unforgiving policies and instead provide students with the space to reflect, learn from their mistakes, and move onward.
In Schools, Prisons, and Social Implications of Punishment: Rethinking Disciplinary Practices, Noguera examines the implications of schools’ disciplinary practices, particularly those serving minority and low-income students, in juxtaposition with the functions of prisons and the mission of education. Through observation and research he finds that schools’ “pattern of punishment” mirror those used in prisons in that they instinctively respond to students’ behavior rather than the factors that contribute to such behaviors. He strongly believes that this correlation feeds a cycle of recidivism by failing to combat resulting labels and meet the needs of students. In response, Noguera draws on the functions of schools and the mission of education, arguing for practices that support students’ character, ethical, and moral development as productive members of society.
In Understanding Youth: Adolescent development for educators, educators and psychologists Nakkula and Toshalis, discuss the crucial roles that schools and teachers play in adolescent development. Of particular intent and focus are the chapters on relational factors such as students’ self-perception of power, autonomy, and value which directly influence their willingness and desire to either accept or resist the structures in place. In an effort to promote a sense of acceptance and inclusion amongst students, Nakkula and Toshalis support the use of educational mentoring models that teach students about being in healthy relationships by focusing on educating “to care” and “through care”. Through the use of such models students develop skills such as collaboration, respect, and empathy which are essential to their success both inside and outside of school.
In one particular chapter of Middle and Secondary Classroom Management, Weinstein focuses on enhancing student motivation, discussing factors that influence motivation as well as actions that can be used to boost motivation. However, one of Weinstein’s areas of focus is around the use of rewards as a form of manipulation and control. Incorporating the work of Alfie Kohn, Weinstein suggests that through the use of rewards we actually inhibit students’ development of things such as self-regulation. This also holds true for punishments where undesirable behavior is constantly met with external reinforcement, superseding students’ self-reflection and consequent
internalization.
In light of all of this, I seek a resolution that will address the impact of currently used punitive structures on students’ behavior, providing some insight into alternative practices that are believed to warrant the change we desire. Hence, my inquiry question is formed:
What happens when I give my students the opportunity to reflect on their behavior that has been deemed undesirable?
In an environment such as that present at Mastery Shoemaker where “Excellence, No Excuses” is the motto of expectations, there is simply no in between, no room for disorder or disruption. Students are either rewarded for their adherence or reprimanded for their noncompliance in order to maintain the order of the school. However, more times than not, those reprimanded for disruptive behavior continue to challenge school structures, receiving increased levels of punishments and showing no signs of change. Unfortunately, this is a classical case for students, especially for those who already have a history of conflict with remaining within the schools boundaries and
expectations. Recidivism rates are high, as the same students are constantly being reprimanded.
As I continued to observe these things within my placement, I developed the notion that we had become so accustomed to some students’ behaviors and attitudes that in our generalization, we never really forced students’ into opportunities to actually reflect and reconsider. Rather than do what is in the best interest of the student, there is a “blind adherence to rules” (Michie, p. 8). As a result behaviors and attitudes have not only not changed, but they have been normalized. This lack of adaptation calls into question the effectiveness of punitive punishments in redirecting and ultimately deterring undesired behavior. Seeking more promising and permanent results, my inquiry explores the effects of restorative practices on students’ behavior that encourage reflection and self-redirection. As Kohn emphasizes “if we want youngsters to become self-regulating, responsible, caring individuals, we must abandon attempts at external control and provide students with the opportunities to develop competence, connection, and autonomy in caring classroom communities” (Weinstein, 2007, p. 206).
*Disclaimer: The purpose of this inquiry is not to bash or downplay all that Mastery Shoemaker has accomplished. I admire Mastery
Shoemaker's drive and dedication in providing a wealth of academic and extra-curricular support, opportunities, and experiences for its “underprivileged” and “at-risk” students. The purpose of this inquiry is to explore alternative approaches in responding to students behavior that support more reflective rather than punitive measures.