2022-23學年對教育工作者來說是特別暴力的一年。
在佛羅里達州,一名高中生將一名教輔人員打得不省人事。喬治亞州一名15歲的學生把老師打得行走不便。德克薩斯州的一群學生把副校長打進了醫(yī)院。
最近的頭條新聞顯示,2023-24學年可能不會有太大的改觀。
此類校園暴力事件擾亂了教學秩序,并引發(fā)人們呼吁改革學校紀律政策。
作為一名研究學校安全和紀律的政策研究員,我看到在學校紀律問題上形成了觀點兩極分化和政治化的兩大陣營。一方是那些尋求對不良行為采取更多恢復性對策的人,他們強調(diào)與學生建立良好關系,并制定讓學生留在學校的紀律政策。而另一方則呼吁更多地使用排他性和懲罰性措施,如停學。
我認為,要確保學校安全,學校領導就不能陷入這種非此即彼的爭論中。相反,我認為人們要意識到實現(xiàn)學校安全是共同目標,因此需要采取綜合方法來實現(xiàn)這一目標。
行為與疫情
最近的報告顯示,這些備受矚目的校園暴力事件是過去幾年學生不良行為普遍增加的一部分。這與學生不良行為前幾十年的下降形成鮮明對比。
例如,美國國家教育統(tǒng)計中心(National Center for Education Statistics)發(fā)現(xiàn),84%的公立學校領導認為疫情對學生的行為產(chǎn)生了負面影響。另一項調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),三分之二的教師和領導認為與2019年相比,2021年學生不良行為有所增加。
研究表明,那些感到上學不安全的學生的出勤率比那些在暴力和不良行為較少的學校上學的學生要低。他們在標準化測試中的得分也較低,尤其是在課堂教學秩序受到干擾的情況下。
更重要的是,根據(jù)我在2017年與他人合著的一項研究,遭受學生威脅或身體暴力的教師更有可能離職。
恢復性司法遭到強烈反對
在過去的幾十年里,全美各州和學區(qū)都采取了學校紀律改革措施,優(yōu)先考慮同齡人之間以及與老師之間的關系,激勵良好行為并預防不良行為。
這些政策通常是作為恢復性司法倡議的一部分實施的,其重點是建立社區(qū)和積極的學校氛圍,而不是讓孩子輟學。
但隨著校園暴力的持續(xù)發(fā)生,這些恢復性司法改革措施正受到質(zhì)疑。
在內(nèi)華達州,來自克拉克縣教育協(xié)會的教師工會代表試圖修改法律,以立即開除對學校教職工施暴的學生。該州立法機構通過了一項法案,縮減了恢復性司法,更容易使用學生停學這樣的措施。在圣地亞哥,在家長對學生安全提出投訴后,校長承諾將重新審視恢復性紀律政策。政策倡導者聲稱,紀律改革導致了校園槍擊事件的發(fā)生。
雖然恢復性實踐和其他積極的干預措施可以提高學生的成績,但之前的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),許多這些懲罰性較弱的紀律改革措施實施不力或效果不如預期。
在某些情況下,這意味著盡管學生對他人的安全構成威脅,但他們?nèi)员辉试S留在學校。
停學和開除不是解決辦法
恢復性實踐的局限性導致人們呼吁恢復使用停學和其他懲罰性紀律手段,并加大使用力度。其中最引人注目的是,佛羅里達州的一名警長在一所監(jiān)獄前宣布,計劃恢復更具懲罰性的紀律措施,表明有必要更多地使用留校和停學等措施。他感嘆說,學生們不再害怕停學,也不再害怕"因在課堂上表現(xiàn)不好而丟臉"。
在某些情況下,把擾亂課堂秩序的學生趕走對其他學生的成績有積極影響。但是,像停學和開除這樣的排他性學校紀律可能會對學生產(chǎn)生意想不到的后果。例如,停學與被停學學生的學業(yè)考試成績下降以及青少年犯罪活動(如犯罪活動和逮捕)增加有關。
此外,學校停學的非白人學生比例過高,尤其是黑人學生。此外,男生和殘疾學生更有可能被停學。
歸根結(jié)底,幾乎沒有證據(jù)表明停學和開除能改善學生的行為。事實上,最近的一項全國性調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),只有13%的校長認為停學能減少不良行為。
未來發(fā)展道路
漸進式紀律改革的支持者和那些主張"強硬"、排他性政策的人都希望實現(xiàn)學校安全。在監(jiān)獄前發(fā)言的警長和他的批評者都希望防止孩子們最終被關進監(jiān)獄。
政策制定者和教育工作者如何超越這些分歧,實現(xiàn)學校安全?
首先,承認有效的學校紀律政策包括恢復性和排他性兩種做法可能會大有裨益。誠然,有必要減少對輕微違法行為過度使用停學的做法。但是,對他人構成直接威脅的學生可能需要被暫時轉(zhuǎn)移到可以獲得額外支持的環(huán)境中,這也是事實。
其次,學校可以通過加強優(yōu)秀教學和培養(yǎng)積極師生關系來加強校風建設。能夠讓學生沉浸在溫馨的學習氛圍的學校可能會避免許多行為狀況的發(fā)生。
最后,政策制定者要認識到,學校安全受到學生校外經(jīng)歷的影響。通過實施更廣泛的公共政策來解決學生在家庭和社區(qū)遭受的創(chuàng)傷、暴力和社會干擾問題,有可能改善校內(nèi)安全情況。
要實現(xiàn)這一目標,需要為學校、教育工作者和學生提供資源和支持。不過,我相信,為了實現(xiàn)學校安全的共同目標,這些資源都會物盡其用。(財富中文網(wǎng))
F·克里斯·柯倫(F. Chris Curran),佛羅里達大學教育領導與政策副教授。
本文依據(jù)知識共享許可協(xié)議轉(zhuǎn)載自The Conversation。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
2022-23學年對教育工作者來說是特別暴力的一年。
在佛羅里達州,一名高中生將一名教輔人員打得不省人事。喬治亞州一名15歲的學生把老師打得行走不便。德克薩斯州的一群學生把副校長打進了醫(yī)院。
最近的頭條新聞顯示,2023-24學年可能不會有太大的改觀。
此類校園暴力事件擾亂了教學秩序,并引發(fā)人們呼吁改革學校紀律政策。
作為一名研究學校安全和紀律的政策研究員,我看到在學校紀律問題上形成了觀點兩極分化和政治化的兩大陣營。一方是那些尋求對不良行為采取更多恢復性對策的人,他們強調(diào)與學生建立良好關系,并制定讓學生留在學校的紀律政策。而另一方則呼吁更多地使用排他性和懲罰性措施,如停學。
我認為,要確保學校安全,學校領導就不能陷入這種非此即彼的爭論中。相反,我認為人們要意識到實現(xiàn)學校安全是共同目標,因此需要采取綜合方法來實現(xiàn)這一目標。
行為與疫情
最近的報告顯示,這些備受矚目的校園暴力事件是過去幾年學生不良行為普遍增加的一部分。這與學生不良行為前幾十年的下降形成鮮明對比。
例如,美國國家教育統(tǒng)計中心(National Center for Education Statistics)發(fā)現(xiàn),84%的公立學校領導認為疫情對學生的行為產(chǎn)生了負面影響。另一項調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),三分之二的教師和領導認為與2019年相比,2021年學生不良行為有所增加。
研究表明,那些感到上學不安全的學生的出勤率比那些在暴力和不良行為較少的學校上學的學生要低。他們在標準化測試中的得分也較低,尤其是在課堂教學秩序受到干擾的情況下。
更重要的是,根據(jù)我在2017年與他人合著的一項研究,遭受學生威脅或身體暴力的教師更有可能離職。
恢復性司法遭到強烈反對
在過去的幾十年里,全美各州和學區(qū)都采取了學校紀律改革措施,優(yōu)先考慮同齡人之間以及與老師之間的關系,激勵良好行為并預防不良行為。
這些政策通常是作為恢復性司法倡議的一部分實施的,其重點是建立社區(qū)和積極的學校氛圍,而不是讓孩子輟學。
但隨著校園暴力的持續(xù)發(fā)生,這些恢復性司法改革措施正受到質(zhì)疑。
在內(nèi)華達州,來自克拉克縣教育協(xié)會的教師工會代表試圖修改法律,以立即開除對學校教職工施暴的學生。該州立法機構通過了一項法案,縮減了恢復性司法,更容易使用學生停學這樣的措施。在圣地亞哥,在家長對學生安全提出投訴后,校長承諾將重新審視恢復性紀律政策。政策倡導者聲稱,紀律改革導致了校園槍擊事件的發(fā)生。
雖然恢復性實踐和其他積極的干預措施可以提高學生的成績,但之前的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),許多這些懲罰性較弱的紀律改革措施實施不力或效果不如預期。
在某些情況下,這意味著盡管學生對他人的安全構成威脅,但他們?nèi)员辉试S留在學校。
停學和開除不是解決辦法
恢復性實踐的局限性導致人們呼吁恢復使用停學和其他懲罰性紀律手段,并加大使用力度。其中最引人注目的是,佛羅里達州的一名警長在一所監(jiān)獄前宣布,計劃恢復更具懲罰性的紀律措施,表明有必要更多地使用留校和停學等措施。他感嘆說,學生們不再害怕停學,也不再害怕"因在課堂上表現(xiàn)不好而丟臉"。
在某些情況下,把擾亂課堂秩序的學生趕走對其他學生的成績有積極影響。但是,像停學和開除這樣的排他性學校紀律可能會對學生產(chǎn)生意想不到的后果。例如,停學與被停學學生的學業(yè)考試成績下降以及青少年犯罪活動(如犯罪活動和逮捕)增加有關。
此外,學校停學的非白人學生比例過高,尤其是黑人學生。此外,男生和殘疾學生更有可能被停學。
歸根結(jié)底,幾乎沒有證據(jù)表明停學和開除能改善學生的行為。事實上,最近的一項全國性調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),只有13%的校長認為停學能減少不良行為。
未來發(fā)展道路
漸進式紀律改革的支持者和那些主張"強硬"、排他性政策的人都希望實現(xiàn)學校安全。在監(jiān)獄前發(fā)言的警長和他的批評者都希望防止孩子們最終被關進監(jiān)獄。
政策制定者和教育工作者如何超越這些分歧,實現(xiàn)學校安全?
首先,承認有效的學校紀律政策包括恢復性和排他性兩種做法可能會大有裨益。誠然,有必要減少對輕微違法行為過度使用停學的做法。但是,對他人構成直接威脅的學生可能需要被暫時轉(zhuǎn)移到可以獲得額外支持的環(huán)境中,這也是事實。
其次,學??梢酝ㄟ^加強優(yōu)秀教學和培養(yǎng)積極師生關系來加強校風建設。能夠讓學生沉浸在溫馨的學習氛圍的學校可能會避免許多行為狀況的發(fā)生。
最后,政策制定者要認識到,學校安全受到學生校外經(jīng)歷的影響。通過實施更廣泛的公共政策來解決學生在家庭和社區(qū)遭受的創(chuàng)傷、暴力和社會干擾問題,有可能改善校內(nèi)安全情況。
要實現(xiàn)這一目標,需要為學校、教育工作者和學生提供資源和支持。不過,我相信,為了實現(xiàn)學校安全的共同目標,這些資源都會物盡其用。(財富中文網(wǎng))
F·克里斯·柯倫(F. Chris Curran),佛羅里達大學教育領導與政策副教授。
本文依據(jù)知識共享許可協(xié)議轉(zhuǎn)載自The Conversation。
譯者:中慧言-王芳
The 2022-23 school year was a particularly violent year for educators.
In Florida, a high school student beat a paraprofessional unconscious. A 15-year-old in Georgia left her teacher with difficulty walking. And a group of students in Texas sent their assistant principal to the hospital after an assault.
Recent headlines suggest the 2023-24 school year may not be much different.
Such violence at school disrupts teaching and learning and has elicited calls to reform school discipline policies.
As a policy researcher who studies school safety and discipline, I have seen two camps form with polarized and politicized views on school discipline. On the one side are those who seek more restorative responses to misconduct that emphasize building relationships with students and discipline policies that keep kids in school. On the other are calls for greater use of exclusionary and punitive practices like suspension.
In my view, making schools safe requires school leaders not to get caught up in this either/or debate. Instead, I believe it requires recognizing a shared goal of safe schools and the need for a comprehensive approach to achieving it.
Behavior and the pandemic
Recent reports suggest these high-profile incidents of violence in schools are part of a general increase in student misconduct over the past couple of years. This contrasts with a decline over the prior decades.
For example, the National Center for Education Statistics found that 84% of public school leaders felt the pandemic negatively affected student behavior. Another survey found two out of three teachers and leaders perceived more student misbehavior in 2021 than in 2019.
Studies have shown that students who feel unsafe going to school have worse attendance rates than those attending schools with less violence and misbehavior. They also score lower on standardized tests, particularly when classroom instruction is disrupted.
What’s more, teachers who experience threats or physical violence from students are more likely to leave their positions, according to a study I co-authored in 2017.
Restorative justice experiences backlash
Over the past couple of decades, states and school districts nationwide have adopted school discipline reforms that prioritize relationships between peers and with teachers, positive incentives for good behavior and prevention of misconduct.
These policies, often implemented as part of restorative justice initiatives, focus on building community and a positive school climate instead of removing kids from school.
But as school violence persists, these restorative justice reforms are being called into question.
In Nevada, teachers union representatives from the Clark County Education Association sought to revise laws to immediately remove students for violence against school staff. The state legislature there passed legislation scaling back restorative justice and making it easier to suspend students. In San Diego, the superintendent promised to revisit restorative discipline policies after parent complaints about student safety. Policy advocates have claimed discipline reform has contributed to school shootings.
While restorative practices and other positive interventions can improve student outcomes, prior research has found many of these less punitive disciplinary reforms to be poorly implemented or less effective than hoped.
In some cases, this has meant students have been allowed to stay in school despite posing a threat to the safety of others.
Suspensions and expulsions aren’t the solution
The limitations of restorative practices have resulted in calls for a return to greater use of suspensions and other punitive discipline. In one of the most high-profile displays, a Florida sheriff announced in front of a jail plans for a return to more punitive discipline, suggesting a need for more use of detentions and suspensions. He lamented that students were no longer afraid of suspensions or having “the cheeks of their a– torn off for not doing right in class.”
In some cases, removing students who are disruptive to the classroom has had positive effects on other students’ achievement. But exclusionary school discipline like suspension and expulsion can have their own unintended consequences on students. For example, suspensions are related to lower academic test scores for those suspended as well as increased delinquency, such as criminal activity and arrest.
Additionally, schools suspend a disproportionately high number of kids who aren’t white – particularly Black students. In addition, males and students with disabilities are more likely to be suspended.
Ultimately, there is little evidence that suspensions and expulsions improve behavior. In fact, a recent national survey found that only 13% of principals agreed that suspensions reduce future misbehavior.
A path forward
Proponents of progressive discipline reform and those advocating for “get-tough,” exclusionary policies share a desire for safe schools. The sheriff speaking in front of the jail as well as his critics both want to prevent kids from ending up incarcerated.
How do policymakers and educators see past these divides to achieve safer schools?
First, it may help to acknowledge that effective school discipline policies can include both restorative and exclusionary practices. It is true that there is a need to reduce the disproportionate use of suspension for minor offenses. But it is also true that students who pose an immediate danger to others may need to be temporarily removed to settings where they can receive additional support.
Next, schools can focus on strengthening their school climate through excellent instruction and positive relationships between students and teachers. Welcoming schools where students are engaged in learning may preempt many behavioral situations.
Finally, policymakers can recognize that school safety is affected by the experiences of students outside of school. Addressing the trauma, violence and social disruptions experienced in homes and neighborhoods through broader public policy holds potential to improve safety inside schools.
All of this takes resources and support for schools, educators and students. I believe these are resources well spent, though, to achieve the shared goal of school safety.
F. Chris Curran is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy, University of Florida.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.