Published: February 1, 2000
When I taught English at a small Wisconsin high school, the principal
arranged a summit every month or so between the teachers and parents of
a struggling student. Compelled to attend, young Bethany generally
looked quite dyspeptic while we adults formulated a plan to get her
back to work. In retrospect, I think our best approach would have been
to schedule more meetings for the poor student. A teenager might become
a National Merit Scholar to avoid such a fate. Instead, we agreed to
the usual solutions: Bethany would study at least two hours each night
in a clean, well-lighted room, undisturbed by phone calls or the
television. Invariably, we also developed a check and double-check
system—parent and teacher signatures were required—to
verify that assignments were completed each and every day.
Regardless of the precise mechanics of these schemes, they were usually predicated upon rewards and punishments. Many of the school's parents were affluent and philistine in equal measure, and they didn't hesitate to guarantee Bethany a ski trip or sailboat jaunt for a B average. Continued poor performance, on the other hand, was to be punished, often with a "grounding" that just might, the parents liked to imply, last forever.
Though the school counselor encouraged such plans and parents enthusiastically agreed to them, none seemed to work. Threats and admonitions were to no avail. If anything, our coaxing had the opposite effect, transforming mere deadbeats into conscientious objectors who refused...
|
Premium Online Access PLUS Print Full online access to edweek.org plus Education Week in print |
|---|
| $6.25/month charged annually |
|
Premium Online Access Full online access to edweek.org |
|---|
|
FREE Registration Limited online access to edweek.org |
|---|
Advertisement
Related Stories
Web Resources
Advertisement
Advertisement
TM Archive