STUDENTS DESERVE TEACHERS' RESPECT

Re: "Who let the dogs into our schools?" Naomi Lakritz, Opinion, Jan. 13.

Naomi Lakritz's piece touches on important issues in the most superficial
way while managing to be completely muddled in its reasoning. To top it
off, her perceptions of children and youth are downright obscene.

Where to begin? How about with what we can agree on.

A drug-sniffing dog in an Edmonton school truly is a draconian measure. Oh,
yes, she is hopelessly old-fashioned in her view that top-down control over
anyone is the way to accomplish anything.

Dogs nosing around for drugs is no different than installing metal
detectors, surveillance cameras and increasing police presence in our
schools. This is the case in many larger Canadian and American cities. Do
we want this in Alberta schools? Is it effective in curbing problematic
behaviour?

The evidence shows us that if school becomes like a jail, kids act like
they're in one. It's profoundly demoralizing to be treated day in and day
out like an offender-in-waiting.

Students who are causing trouble at school only comprise about 10 to 20 per
cent of the total. But schools are focusing aggressive, reactive methods on
the entire school population, which distorts the magnitude of the problem
and our perception of youth, often resulting in greater disorder.

Research by the U.S. Department of Education shows that, four times out of
five, disruptive students' behaviour can be traced to some dysfunction in
the way schools are organized, the way staff members are trained or the way
schools are run.

Vandalism was typically higher in schools that emphasized punitive school
disciplinary methods.

But what I found most alarming is Lakritz's choice of the words "rotten
brats." It calls to mind terms like lazy Indians, sneaky Orientals, huffy
broads.

Words that smack of fear and concern for one's place in the hierarchy,
one's piece of the pie. Words that tell us that something is afloat. Words
that tell us there is a sea-change about to happen. When any group decides
they're fed up with arbitrary authority and constant disrespect, you can
expect some kind of backlash.

Adults who resent youth, or any particular group for that matter, often
fall back on empty phrases, a lazy analysis of the problem.

In Lakritz's case, she relies on one I've heard repeatedly lately, the one
about adults tiptoeing around children afraid of hurting feelings or
stifling self-expression.

What does this really mean? (Years of witnessing teachers' behaviour when I
volunteered in the classroom didn't reveal much tiptoeing.) Does it mean we
should be able to insult kids or shame them into submission? Does it mean
that adults should never look inward or to the school or society to
understand why youth struggle?

Did it ever occur to Lakritz to ask how parenting has evolved since we were
kids or our parents were kids? As we experiment with ways to raise them
that don't involve physical and emotional violence, we are experiencing
ever increasing boundaries drawn around the nuclear family.

In our culture, we are given so little practical or emotional support from
extended family and neighbours in reinforcing our values. We battle rampant
technology that steals our kids' hearts and minds. It's surprising that
families are doing as well they are.

Lakritz's teacher-friend has to remind students she's the boss. I'm not
surprised students react to this sophisticated bit of educational
psychology by arguing they are equals.

Students may not have the words for it, but they know in their hearts they
are entitled to respect. They know respect must be earned by their
teachers, and those who have the most stake in being rule enforcers are the
most likely to fail in this regard.

Youth seem to have figured out something that adults haven't even begun to
catch on to: School as we've known it is an antiquated institution. Just
like denying women the right to vote, just like a head tax on the Chinese,
just like corralling First Nations in residential schools.

Something's gotta give.