Letters

The Parent Connection
I've been a teacher for 13 years and a parent for four years. I agree with Bob Chase that there are "real obstacles to parent-school cooperation" (President's Viewpoint, January) But I disagree that teachers "must go to [parents]."

Chase says that "parents are crunched for time." As a full-time teacher and a full-time parent, I can second ... and third ... that! But it is my job as a parent to be a parent--which includes getting involved in my child's education. It is not the teacher's job to parent me!

Besides, like it or not, many of our students live in areas that are dangerous. Given the continual rise in school violence, I am shocked that anyone would suggest home visits and/or workplace visits as a possibility.

I have many working parents who cannot meet with me during the "normal" school hours. So I utilize phone conferences and E-mail to keep in touch. I feel these are safer, more reasonable solutions.

Lorna Maxwell
Newbury Park, California

Inclusion for All
I really enjoyed your article on inclusion. (January cover story) I wanted to let you know that my sixth grade team of teachers at Denmark Middle School have been successfully implementing inclusion for years. I'm a resource teacher and my team offers support in the encore classes such as Spanish, keyboarding etc., as well as the core classes. I also have the special needs students for homeroom, guided study, and study hall, daily. Many of my students are on the honor roll and tutor elementary students during the school day. Several of them excel in extracurricular activities, and our program includes all levels of special needs students.

It would be a great idea to do an article based on the students' perception of what it is like to experience full inclusion and have special needs.

Mary Bukoski
Denmark, Wisconsin

Disruptive Students
As a veteran of 29 years in the classroom, it is my position that chronically disruptive students need to be removed permanently from the traditional classroom setting (Should teachers have the authority to remove disruptive students from their classes permanently Debate, January).

For many years, I have had my classes held hostage by the demands of students who, despite all the intervention of counselors, peer mediation, parental conferences, and more, insisted upon and even delighted in disrupting the class and stealing instructional time. Not only were other students denied opportunity of my full attention, but I was deprived of doing what I was hired to do: teach.

When all attempts to remedy the situtation fail, it is time to consider the rights of the majority of the students who are there to learn. For too long we have allowed the "rights" of one disruptive student to deprive an entire classroom of valuable instructional time and the right to a peaceful educational setting.

Fortunately, in my building we now have an administrator who feels the same way--students who insist on disruption despite teacher and administrative attempts to resolve the situation are removed from that classroom so the rest of the students are not denied an opportunity to learn and the teacher is not denied an opportunity to teach. The students appreciate this as well as the staff.

Thomas Hanrahan
Saline, Illinois

I am always amazed at how easily people blame students with disabilities for the lion's share of classroom problems.

In the January Debate, the teacher who argues for removing students makes her argument by blaming students and parents for the problem. It is implied that the student is "bad." This shows a lack of understanding of the effects of a disability on a child. They are not bad. They have a real problem--a disability. It is not their fault. We must model compassion if we are ever to have a meaningful effect on values. If we don't have compassion then that is what we teach.

All students benefit from positive role models. The child with the disability benefits from the appropriate behavior of his classmates, the non-disabled classmates benefit from watching someone try--against all odds--to learn and all students benefit.

Ben Adams
Los Angeles, California

There comes a point, when interventions have been attempted, parents have been contacted, and virtually all efforts have been made to allow a disruptive student the opportunity to learn, that removal is the best option.

Schools need to make accommodations for this. Many disruptive students cannot function with the numerous distractions in the classroom, their classmates being the number one distraction. These students will benefit greatly from small group or one-to-one instruction. Schools, and Mr. Richardson (Jan. 2002) need to realize this, and acknowledge the need to accommodate the teachers in this regard.

Fast forward to high school. Disruptive students are keen enough to realize they can play the system, and they do. Removal should also be considered for students who do absolutely no work, or have an abnormal number of absences. Their "needs" require an alternate form of education. It is in their best interests.

Brian Miller
San Luis Obispo, California

Teachers should have the right to ask a disruptive student to leave the classroom. First, the teacher should try intervention: speak to the student in the hall, ask the student to confer after school regarding WHY he/she is in such need of attention, and set up a contract with the student regarding disruptive behavior. If the disruptive student is habitual, and I have had some over the years, the teacher should seek help and advice from the counselor and/or principal. Parents should be notified. If all methods fail, the student should fulfill the consequences for actions. We all have consequences. How does a student learn if he/she isn't part of the plan and the consequences? It is not fair to other students when attention-seekers disrupt. Disruptive students have other problems. They are only acting out. Removal is a temporary solution. I would rather have one parent call me regarding one student removal than many calls asking me why the disruption continues and nothing is done. It makes us all look ineffective.

Judy Johnson
Spencer, Iowa

Commercial Spot
I disagree with the premise of "Get Rid of Ads" (Innovation, January). According to Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert, "Our schools should be sacred ground because children have enough exposure to advertisers." He also states, "Children go to school to learn how to read, write and think."

I agree. So as part of my introduction to debate, I taught different aspects of persuasion, including advertisements. The students became more aware of selling techniques and better informed consumers.

Schools are about educating students about the world, not hiding them from it.

Richard L.Marcus
Bellingham, Washington

as this a contest "ad" in NEA Today? It seems that Commercial Alert wants us to advertise their point of view to our students through a "contest." Very sly.

One $5,000 prize could not begin to help any school the way Channel One does. Part of education includes creating wise consumers, and our students are exposed to ads every day and everywhere.

If I can give my students things my school system cannot provide (due to fiscal limitations) by allowing a few more ads in their lives, it's worth it.

Lynda Davidson
Covington, Tennessee

Lessons of Free Trade
Guy Costello wrote eloquently about a factory in his district cutting wages and thousands of jobs over the past decades (My Turn, January). Many of us have had to face such dislocations in our communities, and these changes tug at our hearts.

Unfortunately, I believe Costello's response??to oppose trade policies such as the Free Trade of the Americas Act (FTAA)??is counterproductive.

The FTAA, if it becomes law, is perhaps the best hope for bringing those jobs back. It will reduce barriers to trade and spur exports and economic growth for American companies, farmers, and small businesses. It will create a $10 trillion common market from the Bering Strait to Tierra del Fuego. Increased exports means increased economic growth and increased jobs.

Rather than showing students that we should erect barriers to any changes that may entail some pain, we should let them know that change will be a part of their lives and that they can best prepare for it by acquiring the skills and abilities to adapt.

Michael Yell
Hudson, Wisconsin

Leaving Teaching
Recently, I read Kim Jarman's letter about her reasons for wanting to leave teaching (Letters, October). It was refreshing to hear someone who has the courage to say it like it is.

Like Ms. Jarman, I love teaching. Working with the students is often very rewarding. But the job of teaching is becoming more impossible every day.

Virtually all of the responsibility for raising academic and behavioral standards is placed squarely on the shoulders of teachers and other school staff. Most of us have spent years knocking ourselves out to raise standards. After only 10 years, I can't imagine having the stamina to stay until retirement.

When I ask, "When will educational reform come to the HOMES of American students?" almost everyone appears to be mute on the subject: legislators, parents, educational agencies, the media, and even those of us who work in schools. Far too few parents spend time with their children.

Parents have ALWAYS been the primary role-models and teachers for their own children. How can teachers raise academic and behavioral standards if our own students and their parents will not accept their own role in this huge endeavor called "educational reform"? School staff cannot do this alone.

Like Ms. Jarman, I must decide if I will leave teaching. After 10 years, I still owe $22,000 for school debts. While my non-teaching friends are out enjoying their evenings and weekends, I'm at home analyzing and scoring student work, reading curriculum manuals, and pondering the choice:

I must either lower my standards and stop assigning homework, or I must leave teaching to go to a profession where hard work and high standards are appreciated by both the customers and the management. It's a choice I never dreamed I'd be making when, starry-eyed, I started teaching.

Karen Hertz
Bothell, Washington

Does Dress Matter?
With regard to the November debate question, "Do students behave better when the teacher is well dressed?" I would have to say my answer is yes. But I also have to qualify my response.

I teach only foreign students. They respect me more because I come to school every day wearing a tie and sport jacket or suit. However, the opposite reaction occurs when I have to enter a teacher's room where students are predominantly Anglo. Instead of respect, I hear jeers and putdowns. Therefore, in my school being well dressed brings different reactions from different cultural groups.

If I had to teach Anglo students, I would have to change my ways and be more casual. I would also feel less of a professional.

Someone once wrote a letter to the editor in our local paper in which that person chastised the teachers for dressing so sloppily while the students have to wear a uniform. Enough said.

Gerald Lunderville
Long Beach, California

How shallow a teacher must think her students are if she believes that their behavior is controlled by how she dresses.

I am an art teacher who dresses very casually. Ironically, I had more behavior problems when I was a newer teacher and for over six years bowed to peer pressure to dress "in a professional manner." Somehow teaching ceramics and sculpture didn't really work very well with "professional" dress standards. Dressing up inhibited my movements and my willingness to get down and dirty with my ceramic students.

Since I decided to dress as befits a ceramics teacher who basically works with mud all day, I have been more comfortable, more relaxed, happier, and more willing to get a little dirty in order to help students. Since then, I have also had far fewer discipline problems in my classroom.

I will admit that a teacher should be clean and well-groomed in academic classes, but I do not believe that dressing casually creates a feeling of disrespect or shows "a lack of preparation and organizational skills," as one Debater noted. This is a very prejudiced and narrow view of the quality of a teacher.

Cindy Husar
Ft. Wayne, Indiana