There has been increasing national focus on the quality of education. No Child Left Behind puts considerable responsibility on the school system and the teacher specifically for the success of each student. There is a debate going on presently concerning the need for "highly qualified teachers" with a view to create incentives for teachers whose students achieve.

My first question is this: What, exactly, is the parents' role in creating success for their children?
Nearly every psycho/social theory of human development places the most important stages of intellectual development between 0 and 6 years of age. Countless research studies have shown that the children of supportive parents who are active in the child's education are far more successful than those who are not. Still, when an eight year old child fails an achievement test it is the school and teacher who bear the responsibility.

In districts where there is low parental involvement (or, sadly, detrimental involvement often requiring the state Child Services) teachers are expected to bring their students to the same level of achievement as in more supportive districts. There is NO opportunity for schools to document severe disability, social emotional disorder or abuse on a student's achievement tests. The federal government is blind to that issue.

My second question is: Should a child become a burden (either in a classroom or publicly as a criminal) should a parent bear some responsibility, either legal or financial, for the child's shortcomings?

I ask this because, as I see it, there is a rash of children being labeled as "special needs". More and more children are "ADHD". They are disruptive in classes. They require expensive, special services that can often cost three or more times the national average of about $7500 per student per year. Often the child's disability is associated with severe emotional disturbances from childhood, fetal alcohol syndrome or other forms of neglect.

Is it fair to burden ONLY the teachers with the responsibility for these students' grades and, conversely, is it fair to other students to sit in a class that is disrupted by a severely disturbed child?

If you think this is not what is happening in a school near you then you are mistaken. The national trend toward an "inclusion model of education" is placing ALL students in a regular setting classroom.

I believe that parents are to work hand in hand with teachers in helping their children to learn. I've found that when asked "what can we do?" the most oft-heard answer runs along the lines of reinforcing what has been taught during the day. I have a pre-schooler and at this stage of the game, we go over his "worksheet" which lists what he did during the school day. It is also the role of parents to be active in their children's education. A parent is also an advocate. We ask for more responsibility for him and try to get down to the bottom of whatever it is that needs to be improved.





Ideally, yes. However, some parents are locked up and the other spouse may hold a low-wage job with long hours. It is hard to provide a positive educational atmosphere to encourage growth at home under that circumstance. On top of that, what can the state or government really do about the problem? Threaten to jail them? What if they are already in jail?

QUOTE

I ask this because, as I see it, there is a rash of children being labeled as "special needs". More and more children are "ADHD".

That is not the fault of parenst at all. Those things happen without regard to parenting. Can they be ameliorated by proper and good parenting? Yes, but even parents have limits.

QUOTE

No it is not, but that's a favorite political target of sorts. Who can oppose "standards" and "accountability"? The problem is, those words dress up proposed answers that have more to do with getting politicians elected, as opposed to truly addressing the problem at hand.



"Inclusion" is not the problem. I have taught for seven years and have never had a problem with it. I've had ADHD students, the whole gamut of alphabet disorders. They were successful and were not a distraction as I ran one tight ship. This statement is also presumptuous in that it implies that those with severe problems have to be mainstreamed. That isn't always the case.

Parents need to be sure their children are fed, healthy and attend school every day and complete homework as assigned. With the majority of families having both parents working, parents should not have the responsibility of tutoring their children. NCLB is excellent in that it allows parents to see how the child is doing compared to the district and the state on a standard test. If the school is doing poorly in preparing the student the parent should push for answers from the school system.



IMO yes but good luck trying to get blood out of the stone which is the single parent home of many students. IMO if the child is preventing learning in the classroom he/she should be removed for the balance of the year and given a chance to come back next year and try again.




This was the way it was in the 50s- early 60s when we had one of the best education systems in the world. Then in the late 60s we decided to keep the disruptive students, and even worse, give them “social promotions” so as not to hurt their “self esteem” etc. This was the beginning of the demise of our “good” system into the abysmal mess we have today.

Nebrask29,

In my experience (in urban schools) ADHD is quite regularly used as a blanket diagnosis for students who lack social skills or have a history of violent behavior. Quite regularly the parents of those children display the same anti-social behaviors of their children. Right now I have a student who has a 47 IQ and displays oppositional defiance in the classroom but he is thriving in a stuctured, inclusion setting. I also have a student with a 110 IQ who throws books, refuses to do work and generally makes teaching nearly impossible when he is in the room. His parents refuse to some into the school to speak with us. Another student of mine once spun her teacher around the classroom by the hair. The district insists that the regular classroom setting is the "least restrictive environment" for her.

Presently, the way most states interpret IDEA and the meaning of "least restrictive environment", we have a situation in which very disruptive students are left in the classroom without expensive paraprofessionals or cooperating teachers to help. It is true that a well-run classroom can mitigate the problems from disruptive students, but this usually deteriorates at around sixth grade. A hyperactive and socially/emotionally disturbed 14 year old is much more difficult to control than a nine year old with similar problems.


Two years ago very disruptive students were put in special classrooms (mixed with regular ed. students) in which two teachers worked together with a social worker in order to create a proper learning environment. Those classrooms have been dissolved and the special needs students are now mixed randomly in the general population. Since then the district test scores (which were already at the bottom in the state) have declined.

Ideally, yes. However, some parents are locked up and the other spouse may hold a low-wage job with long hours. It is hard to provide a positive educational atmosphere to encourage growth at home under that circumstance. On top of that, what can the state or government really do about the problem? Threaten to jail them? What if they are already in jail?

I agree. This is the best argument I can find. Another problem is that, among the causes of AHDH, most are due to environmental toxins in-utero or around the home. This is common among low-income families who live in poor housing and who abuse drugs and alcohol more commonly than middle class families.
I have a number of students who have either had lead poisoning or who were born with fetal alcohol syndrome. One of my students (of which I am aware) was born addicted to crack.

My problem is that, as we focus more an more on teacher outcomes, teachers who work with these types pf populations will undoubtedly be labeled as "failing teachers".

Many, if not most of the students that enter my school (it is pre-k - 8) arrive with little or no educational background. Few know colors or can differentiate up from down. The first four years of education in my school, for most students, are focused on social skills and the most basic educational goals. We use two different character building programs.

Is it really JUST a reflection on the school system and the teachers when these students fail to pass the state's sixth and eighth grade assessments? Present federal. educational legislation would have the American public believe it is....

This is ridiculous. No "least restrictive environment" should allow a student to attack a teacher. I have taught Karate for 25 + years (at night) and had a student who, after college and while looking for a job, took a position at Malden MA high school as a substitute teacher. The first day he is in a classroom with disruptive, noisy and cocky kids one of whom uses the f word. So he asks the boy (a junior) to accompany him to the principles office. As he is leaving the room with the boy he turns to take a swing at my friend! Needless to say it was never completed. The kid flew across the hall and smashed head first into lockers – after which he was lead/dragged to the principles office where he was left. When my friend returned to the room it was absolutely silent - and stayed that way. The principle came down late and complemented my friend on his actions and asked him to return! The answer was no.

This kind of nonsense only happens when you put up with it. Parents who refuse to come in and find that their kid is sent home will respond. Parents who have to pick up the kid at the police station will also get the message. The fault lies with administrators who leave teachers with these students – they need to be FIRED. Parents can be told disruptive students will be dismissed. It is fundamentally unfair for the majority to suffer for the sins of the few.