On policy
So, in Educational Philosophy, we're supposed to write a "review" of a school policy, in which we describe, critique and evaluate said policy, offering recommendations for adjustment. We were encouraged to stick to a specific school, and I did, so the version I am about to show you has names omitted.
If you know me, or have read any of my college essays, you may have noticed that I can come on a little strong, and perhaps come off a bit more cynical in writing. I want to apologize, but I don't want to shy away from my opinions.
Gregory House — that's one of the results I got for a Google image search of "cynicism"
So, here's the essay, in all its ungraded glory:
On
Social Contracts in the Mat-Su Borough School District
Social
contracts are part of a national program called Capturing Kids’
Hearts, which the Mat-Su Borough School District first implemented at
a handful of schools during the 2012-2013 school year. The majority
of social contracts are designed by the students and teachers in a
given class period at the beginning of the school year, signed by all
members of the class, and posted around the room. Contracts are also
drawn up between teachers and their principal, as well as District
office staff and their respective supervisor(s). Each contract is
typically a list of words derived from the answers to four
essential questions:
1)
How do you, the student (or subordinate), want to be treated by other
students (or subordinates); 2)
How do you, the student (or subordinate), want to be treated by your
teacher (or supervisor); 3)
How do you, the student
(or subordinate),
think
your teacher (or supervisor) wants
to be treated by you; 4)
How do you (all employees and students) want to be treated during
times of conflict?
If
a student or teacher calls a “foul” on another student or the
teacher for violating any aspect of the social contract, the alleged
offender is required to give the alleged victim two or three
“put-ups” to make amends for what was perceived as a “put-down.”
(Although
neither Capturing Kids’ Hearts nor social contracts are expressly
referenced in the official District handbook, [...] all teachers are expected to have
implemented the policy in their classrooms by now.)
According
to [XXXX] Principal [XX], social contracts
are “merely one piece of our effort to provide students an
environment where warmth and respect are the norm.” Each contract,
once signed, [XX] says, “becomes
a tool to celebrate, redirect and improve the behavior of a group.
The
desired end result [emphasis
added]
is
a self-managing group that operates with care, efficiency and time to
learn.” However, the “desired end result” seems to be, at best,
possible without the drafting of a contract, and at worst,
incommensurable with reality.
Let’s
look at the best-case scenario first. Say all of the students get
along well with, or at least civilly interact with their English
teacher during the whole first week of school. At the beginning of
the second week, the teacher asks the students the four essential
questions. Multiple students raise their hands and politely offer
thoughtful answers to these questions, generating a list of useful
words that clearly define the terms of all participants’
relationships. This list goes completely uncontested, and is agreed
upon by all — or, perhaps there are slight disagreements in the
drafting of this contract that, happily, lead to a constructive
lesson in compromise. Later in the semester, and through to the end
of the year, the teacher and students follow the terms of the
contract admirably, referencing it maybe once or twice when a student
(or the teacher) needed to reflect on some less-than-positive
behavior. When referenced, the behavior in question is tactfully
corrected.
Those
of us who have been in the classroom before know that such a scenario
is unlikely, insofar as, “nothing is perfect” and “the best
laid plans … often go awry.” But there’s more to my skepticism
of this policy than that. First of all, if students are capable of
interacting in this way in devising such a document at the beginning
of the year, do they really need a social contract? Wouldn’t they
be the kind of students who would intuitively understand the need for
respect toward their peers as well as their elder teacher, and be
able to practice that without a physical reminder? That at least
seems reasonable, if not probable, especially for the teachers (at
least, one would hope). Secondly, how do you get kids to take the
activity seriously? What if some students shout out silly or
inappropriate phrases that do not further the social goals of the
class? What if some students refuse to participate in the generation
of words and/or refuse to sign the document? Some educators might
argue, as many do in this District, that this behavior is avoided by
cultivating a positive relationship with one’s students. But
meaningful relationships do not develop in the course of a few days,
and whatever length of time is provided to accomplish such a feat, at
the end of the day, you can’t force someone to like you, respect
you, or open up to you. Even if a student eventually signs the
document and says he “agrees” with it, if he later “fouls”
another member of the class, the “put-ups” he is forced to make
will not be genuine, which will only engender more animosity between
the two people and potentially cause further embarrassment of the
victim.
Lastly,
I cannot understand why the third essential question would be posed
to the student and not the teacher. Are teachers really expected to
have so little agency that how they are to be treated depends solely
on how their students think
they want to be treated? One might argue that the question and the
way the contracts are devised imply some potential back-and-forth
discussion between the student and the teacher on this, but I think
the fact that this is left up for interpretation is a problem.
In
my experience, [XX]’s “desired end result” of implementing
social contracts has been little more than an ideal. Students,
whatever their maturity level, inevitably fail to be kind, respectful
human beings all the time (as do we all, unfortunately), and a social
contract does not prevent that; it is an artifice that is, in all
honesty, insulting to the students and teachers who do their best to
foster a genuinely positive environment. I therefore believe it would
be better to scrap the practice and focus simply on having
meaningful, authentic conversations with students that address
whatever issues arise and develop organically based on specific
situations.
If,
however,
the District
insists on continuing with
this policy of creating and following social contracts, I would
suggest that, 1)
the language of the third essential question is changed to reflect
the teacher’s right to speak for herself, and
to have at least as much say in the contract as her students;
2)
the use of these kind of social contracts should
be limited to elementary and
middle school classrooms,
where more students are still developing a sense of etiquette; and 3)
“put-ups” are not forced
upon students (though some other method of redress will likely be
required to mediate the conflict). Should
the policy remain the way it is, I fear the contracts will do more
harm than help, encouraging students and teachers to simply “go
through the motions” by checking off aspects of mandated behavior
to “address” mistreatment of individuals in the classroom and
beyond.
Thoughts? Comment below.
Thanks for sharing this, Caitlin! I think your careful analysis of this policy is important. I think you're on to something in the way of respect. I agree, the language of the policy seems a rather patronizing for high school student participants. Your efforts here represent important and necessary work in the field of education today. Keep it up!!!
ReplyDelete