Government Intervention: What about an educator's safety?

In recent weeks a horrible move forward in governments interventionist march has come to light. The US House passed a bill HR4247 entitled "Keeping All Students Safe". It sounds wonderful. That is how every child who walks into a school should feel, safe. When does this sentiment go too far? To read the full text of the bill go here: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/legislation/HR4247Seclusion_Restraint.pdf

When you look at the terminology used...words like seclusion and restraint...they paint a very dark picture. You would like to think that those ugly terms would never be applied in a school, where we want our children to feel safe, right? However, there are some realities that exist, that have somehow slipped through the cracks and make this legislation not only short-sighted, but unconstitutional as well. To provide some context on why I am bothering to make mention of this bill, is that my job is with a population of children and adults who will be directly affected, myself included, on what the interpretations will be from a federal manadate (if it passes the senate) to the school I work in. I will give specific concerns as we go along.

If you read through the text of the bill itself, the language seems very nurturing talking about safety for everyone and certain actions only implemented by trained staff, but the problem with the verbage used in legislation like this is how it will be interpreted. The reports of abuse of children by school staff members are horrific to be sure, talking about tying kids up with duct tape and forcing them to the floor. I do not refute the fact that abuses occur and should be addressed with a stern hand, however who should be addressing it seems to be the question here. According to our Constitution, that is a state responsibility. It is not for the federal government to mandate, or play the bully that says you create tougher legislation to address this or else. They can make recommendations, sure, but passing this bill violates states rights. If they are willing (as they have in the past) to not abide by the rule of law our country was founded on, then how concerned are they really about keeping all students safe? I understand it may seem like a big generalization to some, but it boils down to, "We expect you to follow this mandate or else, but we are above following our own rule of law." Now this thought pattern may seem juvenile and buried in semantics, but there is a human rights issue at hand that I wish to address.

In this bill, there is reference to "involuntary" restraint. The definition of "involuntary" is: Acting or done without or against one's will. So to be restrained or to have your mobility limited against your will is not something we would want to participate in. Why do we even have to have such a thing? There is a reason and that is to prevent harm. If a person is a danger to themselves or others around them there should be an opportunity for the people who are in danger or harm to protect and defend themselves. It should be an abosolute last resort and implemented with the utmost care. Verbal interventions based on dignity and respect should always be employed first and many times this can prevent a situation from escalting. However, there are times when another step must be taken. I am not saying it should go to the extremes of some of the examples cited above, but something needs to be done.

There are educational environments where a daily experience for students and staff is being sworn at, having furniture thrown, desks tipped and shoved towards anyone in the room, stabbed with pencils, hit, kicked, bit, graphic sexual language and acts being modeled and there has to be something in place to address that when the moment of last resort comes. It would be nice to think idealistically that a student, for instance, who is "out of control" can be asked nicely to go into a time out area and employ non-violent coping skills to calm down with staff and peer support, without the need for a physical barrier, such as a door, between them and the rest of their peers. That is a goal and with building healthy relationships and building trust, showing compassion and teaching empathy it can eventually be achieved to a certain extent. But like someone who is on Lithium, who wishes to stop taking it, you cannot just stop. You cannot just remove the doors. It takes time.

Having someone in a room behind a closed door is not therapeutically ideal at all, however, wouldn't it be better than to have no door, no space to allow that person to de-escalate without you watching them, and continue the situation that is occurring? Shouldn't adults who are working with children who are combative have the right to have a physical barrier in between them and the child? That is part of their safety. If you do not have even that simple safety available who will be willing to put themselves in harms way to continue to serve these children who need their services? Granted there will be some, but there will be the loss of many.

I believe there should be guidelines at the state and local level to address these issues. This is a not a place (just like NCLB) for the federal government to stick their two cents in. If they want to have a personal view on it and make speeches, great. They can urge your states to be more vigilant on this issue, but do not take the power of the states for yourself and make a law that could have devastating reprocussions on a situation you know nothing about because I'm in a community in the midwest and you're in Washington. Want to know how your representatives voted look here for the roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll082.xml.

There are a lot of large influential educational groups who are in favor of this bill and my position is not a popular one. I want schools to be a safe place and no child should feel fear from being treated without respect when they come to be educated. By working with the populations that I do and seeing the behaviors I have seen, I think that this bill is more harm than it is help. In any behavior management system, if it is not applied ethically and consistently, there will be complications and the proposed outcomes may be compromised.

I encourage people to read this bill and make their own choice. I simply offer one opinion from the trenches of special education and behavioral issues.

Accountibility in Debate

I have viewed all the debates held thus far, the most recent of which was the Democratic Youtube debate. Shortly after the Republican Youtube debate was announced, two campaigns said they were not able to attend (Giuliani & Romney), whereas two others, John McCain & Ron Paul, signed in. There has been an outcry that the majority of Rep. candidates are refraining from joining this format because they fear regular American people. Another school of thought agrees with Mr. Romney, that the format does not display the respect and decorum that should be present in a debate for individuals running for the distinguished office of the presidency and that the questions posed in this latest offering were not answered fully.

I agree that many questions posed in any of these debates are not fully answered. In some respects they have become personal relations opportunities or mere question and answer sessions. However, one thing that the Youtube format brings is an accountability factor. The validity may be marginal in this format, but it is greatly increased when candidates react with disdain and make comments that result in U.S. citizens and voters feel irrelevent. Unfortunately it hasn't taken a "debate" of this nature to disenfranchise the citizens of this country. Politics has been doing this for decades by not allowingwhat some may see as the lowest common denominator of our society to feel they have a stake in this. Some of the recent questions had a humerous bent or were more humanitarian than political, but why is that kind of dialogue a "step down". Is politics so lofty that we only elect ideas? No, we look for a person behind the rhetoric. Convictions behind the t.v. smile and campaign promises.

I feel that someone running for president should not fear any level of "accountability" to the American people, no matter how minimal it is or may seem to be.

Mr. Giuliani and Sen. McCain have already made a stand here in Iowa by saying they will not participate in the upcoming Straw Poll. Sure, they may not expect to do well in the state, but does that mean that you write it off and leave the few supporters you have behind? Do you not participate in a debate because the questions might be hard for you to answer, or silly?

In politics I will admit I am no expert, but as a citizen, a teacher, a human being I expect (though naive it may be) more decorum and respect from those who would be the leader of this country for the people who elect you.

Thank you Ron Paul for being a leader who does not waver and does not shy away from any challenge.

Leave Undeclared Candidates Behind

In a presidential field of eighteen (across major parties) I am questioning more and more what the relavence is for polls like those listed all over the internet to include a growing number of candidates who have not even declared their official canidacy. I am equally amazed at how they shuffle the numbers to determine if one person isn't running who would get their supporting votes. Why skew the public opinoins? As it is, the polls are not representative of any hard data because no one takes the time to call every American household, nor is this feasible. By including the ever growing list of names, in both parties, of people who "may throw their hat in the ring" you create even greater irrelavence in these polls and position yourself consistently further and further from the true feelings of the populace of this country.

It would seem then that polls become another instrument for media influence where it has not business other than to inform, not sway people by painting a falsified portrait of "popular opinoin". You lessen the desire of citizens to vote by diminishing their belief in their power to choose leaders by subduing what is considered by the "power elite" to be little or no consequence, including candidates like Ron Paul.

I do not ask for pandering in the other direction by inflating everyone's numbers, just simple honest and credible reporting. Let's start there.

Harsh Realities

In the last few days I have seen Hillary and John chatting on an open mike wanting to cut their fellow democrats our of the debates, seen people bribed into voting for Mitt Romney at the Iowa Straw Poll with free tickets, seen the truth about Rudy and how he really "handled" September 11th, and the tears start to fall. And yet there are people in the country that don't know what these people really have in store for us if they are elected. Someone commented to me that politics is more than a series of isolated incidents and "waiting for the facts to come in" and that may be so. I am not seeking to tarnish any goodness that may exist within the other presidential candidates, but in order to make an informed decision the facts must be known. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do not appreciate being lied to. I teach my students to respect themselves and the world around them. How valid will this lesson seem when our country's "leaders" rely on dishonesty, corruption, and giving us a false sense of safety by saying they will do "whatever it takes" to maintain our "freedom". What we should really feel when we hear those words is not pride, but fear. As a people we are so enslaved by what we don't know (because we aren't told) and what the "powers that be" choose to feed us. This may seem cynical but I feel it is necessary to name the reality for what it truly is and move with hope toward the future.

Musings from the edge of freedom...

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible bestowing liberty and freedom to all. Why is it that the prestigious elite feel our liberty is up for negotiation? My soul, for one, is not for sale and my rights are not "theirs" to pilfer away for their deceitful, ill-gotten gains. Our nation is sick and those who hold the antidote perpetually dangle it before us with the integrity of a mole and a Cheshire cat's grin.

"Jump through the hoops, " they say. "Jump and we'll give you a treat (free health care, lower taxes, homeland security) but its stale. The promises, the grandstanding, the "meaningful" photo ops, all shallow and empty leaving our people hollow, distrustful and defensive. How do they propose to protect us from something as elusive as the wind? How many lies about global hatred and imminent attacks will they spin for us to swallow? Each time, sucking the marrow of truth from every crevice only to cover the holes with a band aid that's torn and used.

How dare they speak of honor to the people carrying out their "plans" with the stench of their own transgressions reeking from their blood-stained hands. What entitlement bestows upon them the mantle of "moral counselor" or "purveyor of truth"?

The time is yesterday, a change must come. We can't wait for it to come to us but run to meet it with all that is within us to our very last breath. If we don't, the world resulting would not bring that relief swiftly enough.

The doctor is here, but his prescription only works if we take back our own responsibilities entrusted to us by those who came before, and do not allow apathy to become our greatest rival and barrier.

Revolutions, by their very nature, are not smooth but rather the tempest that makes the calm possible when what was promised is indeed restored.

7/1/2007 JLM

The only way to secure a future worth living in is to................

Vote for Ron Paul!!!!!

Iowa Straw Poll August 11th in Ames!!!

The Dangers of Assumptions: Failure & Apathy?

One of the biggest points of frustration with NCLB is the mandated standardized assessments which put our special education students at a disadvantage before they even begin. For a government official it seems an easy assumption that a student who is in sixth grade should be able to read fluently and perform mathematical calculations appropriate for their grade level. Unfortunately this simply is not true. Even in a general education setting there are students who function at, below, and above their chronological grade level. There is so much discussion about the "The Achievement Gap" usually related to questions regarding the race and socioeconomic status of students. The thing is that intelligence is not something that everyone has in equal measure.

I sincerely believe in helping students attain their potential, but not making them into machines of rote memorization. One of the reasons is that the majority of my students do not respond well to that type of instruction. I need to tailor my instruction to the individual needs of each student and meet them where they are functioning. If I have an eighth grade student who reads at the third grade level my focus has to be reaching him where he is and giving him strategies that will increase his confidence and fluency one step at a time. The same principle would apply in math. If he is working at the fourth grade level in math, then we teach him from where he is and grow from there. Where this doesn't work is when that same student goes to take a standardized test like the Iowa Test for Basic Skills and he is given the eighth grade test, because NCLB does not allow for out of level testing (at least as of this last academic year). What kind of scores do you think he will have? If he rates poorly, does that mean that he isn't learning and that I am not doing my job proficiently?

I would say no for a couple of reasons. The first one is based on the academics. I think when measuring student growth the whole person needs to be taken into account, not just numbers. A portfolio of student work should be gathered to accurately show progress, and inform all teachers and parents what areas are strengths and what goals should be set for the future. The second reason is a lack of investment on the part of the students. This is a variable that a test score cannot tell you. Consider this scenario:

John is a sixth grader who for math and reading is working at the fourth grade level. He is given the sixth grade test. The average testing time is about 30 minutes. In the first two minutes John gets frustrated because he doesn't understand the concepts on the test. He may do one of three things. He may really try and figure it out, he may offer some colorful language to the teacher, tear up the test, and walk out of the room, or he may allow himself some creative license and start making designs with the numerous dots he needs to fill in with no regard for what answers he is giving.

A majority of students will try their best but there are many who just don't care. They don't hide this fact and will answer you honestly if asked. The government doesn't hear about all of these anecdotal details. They just see a number. How is this right?

Another part of this population to consideration is students who are not verbal or are physically incapacitated. Where do they fit? Many of them can't be put in a box that will yield you number. There is an alternative assessment piece out there that is able to give a better view of these students and their achievements and abilities. It entails collecting many work samples and presenting things in a comprehensive packet. The problem with this is that school districts are only allowed to give alternative assessments to a certain percentage of their special education students, so we are still leaving someone out.

I have often heard it said that there isn't one policy that can cover everyone. If that is true of adults, it is also true for our children. The more government control given in this matter, the further out of our hands education becomes. It needs to rest with the people who spend every day with these children and who have the training to raise them up to the best they can be.

Ron Paul wants to put this power back in the hands of those who can serve these children best instead of continuing to allow the government to make assumptions based on numbers. This is a country of people, not machines, who deserve to have their humanity and dignity respected and preserved. Supporting bills like NCLB does not adequately address the needs of our schools and and in fact serves to devalue and dehumanize our students by viewing them in fractions. I am a teacher and wish nothing more than to assist my students in making their dreams come true, who is with me?

No Child Left Behind: A report from the trenches...

My name is Jennifer and I am a special education teacher. After a thorough search through the line up of presidential candidates for the 2008 elections, I have decided to give my full support to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. In order to share with you how and why I have arrived at this choice, I would offer the following thoughts.

This year, a landmark law, "No Child Left Behind", is up for debate to be reauthorized by congress. Myself and thousands of other educators across the nation are waiting with baited breath to await our fate at the hands of the "powers that be" in Washington. Educational accountability by itself is not a negative thing by any means. As a classroom teacher, I feel an ethical responsibility to provide the highest level of education to my students supported with a foundation of equally high expectations. In this way, I reach my students where they are functioning academically and socially, helping to guide them to reach their potential and become contributing members of society.

Unfortunately, No Child Left Behind has swiftly become a hindrance rather than a tool for success in the execution of my job. It has not changed my expectations or demeanor towards my students, but has placed limitations and unreasonable benchmarks to work toward by mandating standardized testing of all students in order to measure yearly student progress and teacher quality. This presents several issues and I feel compelling reasons as to why this law must not be reauthorized. They include teacher licensure, out of level testing, student motivation, curriculum alignment, and the limitations of standardized tests and scores.

Ron Paul voted against this legislation, citing "violations against the rights of states' and local communities' authority to control education free from federal interference" which is protected under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Out of the current field of candidates, only two opposed this legislation, and several others continue to change their minds about it depending on what is "popular". We need a leader in this country that will stick to their convictions no matter what the political tides bring. As proven by his voting record and comportment in congress, Ron Paul is that leader. For once there is a candidate who truly supports teachers and the students who are the future of our country.