Building Significant Relationships Key to Keeping Schools Safe
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Valley Insight-
Students come from various family backgrounds and the challenge for educators is to adjust to a changing social climate.
Has the thinking pattern changed over the years for our students? Is cognitive renewal a reality for our young people?
According to Dr. Mullinax and his work, he proposes that there is a difference between “Kids in Trouble” vs. “Trouble Kids.”
“Kids in Trouble” tend to have some external structure in their home settings, have some internal controls, and they act out to meet basic needs. On the other hand “Troubled Kids” have little (or no) external structure in their home settings. They also lack consistent internal control, and they act out in a lifestyle viewed as a legitimate attempt to meet basic needs.
There are many important steps along the way, but in the end he believes there are six keys that unlock unwanted behaviors or faulty thinking.
• Recognize when ownership attitude is appropriate (job, yard, clean clothes, recipes)
• Never own a person, they have a right to individuality
• Never use people to get things
• Assuming responsibilities for self: own actions, thoughts and behaviors
• No one owes you anything
• You do not have the right to anyone else’s personal property
How can we apply this to our schools? What are some other progressive, out-of-the-box thinking ideas for schools to employ?
A Baltimore school implemented a program of “restorative practices” that is explained by Ted Wachtel. Their beliefs are that it is less expensive to run a safe school than a dangerous one, thus saving taxpayers money. They believe that before test scores can rise, students must feel safe at school. Zero tolerance is a concept that makes a nice bumper sticker. It is not great public policy, however. It does not make schools safer.
“Tough love” is a movement that has been around for years. In the years since, there has been more “tough” than “love”. The results for schools have not been impressive. Zero tolerance has been the rule in schools for some time. But in most cases, there have not been reductions in fights, disruptive behavior or other violent acts as a result.
They have found that a combination of high limit setting and high encouragement pays dividends in school safety. They call it restorative practices. It builds social capital, emotional well-being and civic participation. It builds community in a world starved for community. It gives young people the tools to solve many of their own problems. Isn’t that a primary goal in education?
The philosophy is simple. People respond best when you do things with them and not to them. Restorative practice gives students responsibilities. It combines high expectations with lots of support. Think back to the people in your life who had the greatest positive effect on you. They are the ones who had high expectations for you, who were tough but were also supportive. You knew they cared.
In restorative practices, unacceptable behavior is confronted. But the students themselves, including victims, perpetrators and others who have been affected, work together to determine how to make things right. Students assume responsibility for their behavior in a process that is supportive and not demeaning. That makes all the difference. This is not permissiveness. Wrongdoing is not tolerated.
Solutions, however, are arrived at collaboratively, generating “buy in” from the people involved and others who are impacted. There are protocols and processes involved in making restorative practices work in schools. They can be learned and applied. As this happens, the school climate changes for the better. This is not mere theory. It is happening now at schools throughout the United States and other countries.
Building significant relationships is a priority in our schools at TVSC and incorporating restorative practices can be a priority in the coming years.[[In-content Ad]]
Students come from various family backgrounds and the challenge for educators is to adjust to a changing social climate.
Has the thinking pattern changed over the years for our students? Is cognitive renewal a reality for our young people?
According to Dr. Mullinax and his work, he proposes that there is a difference between “Kids in Trouble” vs. “Trouble Kids.”
“Kids in Trouble” tend to have some external structure in their home settings, have some internal controls, and they act out to meet basic needs. On the other hand “Troubled Kids” have little (or no) external structure in their home settings. They also lack consistent internal control, and they act out in a lifestyle viewed as a legitimate attempt to meet basic needs.
There are many important steps along the way, but in the end he believes there are six keys that unlock unwanted behaviors or faulty thinking.
• Recognize when ownership attitude is appropriate (job, yard, clean clothes, recipes)
• Never own a person, they have a right to individuality
• Never use people to get things
• Assuming responsibilities for self: own actions, thoughts and behaviors
• No one owes you anything
• You do not have the right to anyone else’s personal property
How can we apply this to our schools? What are some other progressive, out-of-the-box thinking ideas for schools to employ?
A Baltimore school implemented a program of “restorative practices” that is explained by Ted Wachtel. Their beliefs are that it is less expensive to run a safe school than a dangerous one, thus saving taxpayers money. They believe that before test scores can rise, students must feel safe at school. Zero tolerance is a concept that makes a nice bumper sticker. It is not great public policy, however. It does not make schools safer.
“Tough love” is a movement that has been around for years. In the years since, there has been more “tough” than “love”. The results for schools have not been impressive. Zero tolerance has been the rule in schools for some time. But in most cases, there have not been reductions in fights, disruptive behavior or other violent acts as a result.
They have found that a combination of high limit setting and high encouragement pays dividends in school safety. They call it restorative practices. It builds social capital, emotional well-being and civic participation. It builds community in a world starved for community. It gives young people the tools to solve many of their own problems. Isn’t that a primary goal in education?
The philosophy is simple. People respond best when you do things with them and not to them. Restorative practice gives students responsibilities. It combines high expectations with lots of support. Think back to the people in your life who had the greatest positive effect on you. They are the ones who had high expectations for you, who were tough but were also supportive. You knew they cared.
In restorative practices, unacceptable behavior is confronted. But the students themselves, including victims, perpetrators and others who have been affected, work together to determine how to make things right. Students assume responsibility for their behavior in a process that is supportive and not demeaning. That makes all the difference. This is not permissiveness. Wrongdoing is not tolerated.
Solutions, however, are arrived at collaboratively, generating “buy in” from the people involved and others who are impacted. There are protocols and processes involved in making restorative practices work in schools. They can be learned and applied. As this happens, the school climate changes for the better. This is not mere theory. It is happening now at schools throughout the United States and other countries.
Building significant relationships is a priority in our schools at TVSC and incorporating restorative practices can be a priority in the coming years.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092