« The End of Politics | Main | The Winners & Losers of Politics »
November 06, 2006
Wicked in the 4th Grade
Talk about people "messing with your head"--this story caught my attention because I feel sorry for the 4th-grader.
From today's Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web:
Tyler Stoken, a fourth-grader at Central Park Elementary School in Aberdeen, Wash., is in hot water after taking a standardized test, Bloomberg reports:
Tyler came upon this question: "While looking out the window one day at school, you notice the principal flying in the air. In several paragraphs, write a story telling what happens."
The nine-year-old was afraid to answer the question about his principal, Olivia McCarthy. "I didn't want to make fun of her," he says, explaining he was taught to write the first thing that entered his mind on the state writing test.
In this case, Tyler's initial thoughts would have been embarrassing and mean. So even after repeated requests by school personnel, and ultimately the principal herself, Tyler left the answer space blank. "He didn't want them to know what he was thinking, that she was a witch on a broomstick," says Tyler's mother. . . .
Because Tyler didn't answer the question, McCarthy suspended him for five days. He recalls the principal reprimanding him by saying his test score could bring down the entire school's performance.
"Good job, bud, you've ruined it for everyone in the school, the teachers and the school," Tyler says McCarthy told him.
Why in the world did he think she was a witch?
Five-day suspension? The poor kid is being punished for what seems like having moral sensibilities. Maybe he better get used to it.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 03:15 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834f84d3c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wicked in the 4th Grade:
Comments
Zero tolerance policies are intended to absolve authorities from thinking. In place of discerning judgment, they have a rule book which is applied without mercy and without sense. The only thing it does is allow authority to cover its butt by hding behind that rule book. This applies in all areas where "zero tolerance" policies are imposed. I have yet to see any zero tolerance policy that actually succeeded in achieving the goal for which it was implemented.
And I include in that the Catholic Church's ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy towards sexual abuse of children--not because I favor molesting children, but because the policy absolves the bishops from doing their job, in addition to stacking the deck in favor of any and all accusers. In most cases, the accused are in no position to defend themselves, and even if acquitted in the end, their reputations and lives are in ruins.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 6, 2006 4:12:20 PM
"The poor kid is being punished for what seems like having moral sensibilities."
Actually, the poor kid is being punished for having accurate and discerning thoughts.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 6, 2006 5:24:15 PM
Not to mention tact.
Posted by: Gina | Nov 6, 2006 6:12:56 PM
They suspend people for not answering test questions? What's next, punishment for wrong answers?
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Nov 6, 2006 8:13:12 PM
>>>They suspend people for not answering test questions? What's next, punishment for wrong answers?<<<
An interesting concept, considering that for the last couple of decades teachers have been telling us there are NO wrong answers.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 6, 2006 8:14:51 PM
It almost seems as if the test-makers were trying to trap kids into identifying their principal with a witch. At the very least, the kids have to reveal something of their feelings about their principal. There are millions of questions they could have set; why did they use this one? It's a psychological test, not an academic test, and it's typical of what schooling has become.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 6, 2006 9:25:26 PM
I believe the punishment and the rebuke were excessive and the question was a set up, but I also believe the lad should have answered the question. That is what those in authority over him instructed him to do. Even if, as appears the case, his reasons for not doing so were sincere and even laudable, he was not asked to do anything illegal, immoral or unethical. Let's not applaud the failure of a boy to submit to the authorities over him when he was not asked to do anything sinful. He could have said in his answer that he was sorry that he had such thoughts. Having said that, I do agree with Judy that the question shows the sorry state of our schools. That does not excuse disobedience in this circumstance.
Posted by: GL | Nov 6, 2006 9:40:39 PM
There is also something to be said for ignoring at least certain instructions. I would advise my kids in such a situation to ignore the instruction to write the first thing that comes to mind.
This comes up in my home when my kids are asked to write an essay describing their holiday adventures at the beginning of the school year. They complain that they did not have any adventures and thus cannot write this essay. My response is that the essay is designed to practice and evaluate their writing skills, not to solicit information about their holidays, and that it is therefore perfectly legitimate to invent adventures and describe them.
However, to return to this situation: Would anyone like to speculate what would have happened to Tyler if he had written a story about his principal being snatched up in the air in the rapture? Would that have been a more P.C. type answer to the test question than writing about witches on broomsticks?
Posted by: Wolf N. Paul | Nov 7, 2006 6:15:33 AM
Dear GL,
For once, we disagree. This does not appear to be "disobedience" in any sense of deliberate or willfull defiance of authority. It seems that the personnel involved were focused solely upon exertion of power and intimidation at the expense of humiliating the child for no good reason, but solely in order to meet their bureaucratic agenda.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 7, 2006 6:28:41 AM
>>>This comes up in my home when my kids are asked to write an essay describing their holiday adventures at the beginning of the school year. They complain that they did not have any adventures and thus cannot write this essay. My response is that the essay is designed to practice and evaluate their writing skills, not to solicit information about their holidays, and that it is therefore perfectly legitimate to invent adventures and describe them.<<<
This problem seems to come up a lot. My daughter was competing in a Russian language "Olympiada" in which she won the gold medal for oral presentation, but only got a silver on the written essay. The essay question was, "What do you do in your free time?", to which my daughter responded with a grammatically perfect and very cogent essay that said. "I have no free time, because here are all the things I have to do". Apparently this went over the heads of the judges, who marked her down for non-compliance. Her teacher was ticked, particularly as she is one of the senior members of the committee that organizes these things. Lesson learned: judges at competitions, educational bureaucrats and the like are literal minded boneheads. Give them exactly what they ask, and don't get fancy, because they don't appreciate it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 7, 2006 6:59:10 AM
>>>Lesson learned: judges at competitions, educational bureaucrats and the like are literal minded boneheads<<<
Amen.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Nov 7, 2006 7:24:06 AM
James,
I don't entirely disagree with the latter part of your post, but I do with the first part. You write, "This does not appear to be 'disobedience' in any sense of deliberate or willfull defiance of authority." JMK's posts tells us that "even after repeated requests by school personnel, and ultimately the principal herself, Tyler left the answer space blank."
Now I understand that we are dealing here with a fourth grader who was put in a admittedly difficult position by people who have been correctly labeled as boneheads. He has not, undoubtedly, had as much experience as we have in navigating such situations. That is the reason why I believe both the punishment and the rebuke were grossly excessive. Nonetheless, this could be seen as a teaching opportunity for his parents on the obligation to submit to authority whenever the mandate or prohibition does not require one to sin (or as I am wont to say, to do anything, by act or omission, which is illegal, immoral or unethical). There was nothing inherent in the question which required a disrespectful answer. It certain would seem to be designed to conjur up such an answer, but it did not mandate one. And even if it did, the one who would be dishonored demanded that the question be answered.
Were I this boy's father, I would be having a rather heated conversation with the school authorities and exercising whatever influence I could muster to reverse the punishment. I would also, however, tell my son that submission to authority is part of the teaching of Scripture and that it is no submission to obey only when one agrees with what one is commanded to do. I would probably even give a little lesson on civil disobedience, looking to Christ's and Paul's instructions on the matter and showing the exception as demonstrated by Peter.
This is without question a difficult issue for all humans and especially for independent and individualistic Americans, but it is one which is desperately needed in our society and, dare I say, in our churches. Having just experienced a church split, I must say that Christians of all ages need to take to heart this obligation. The incident provided this boy's parents to teach him the lesson at an early age.
Posted by: GL | Nov 7, 2006 10:45:08 AM
Let's try this again:
The incident provided this boy's parents an opportunity to teach him the lesson at an early age.
Posted by: GL | Nov 7, 2006 10:55:00 AM
Dear GL,
In writing "This does not appear to be 'disobedience' in any sense of deliberate or willfull defiance of authority." I meant that the boy was not being defiant in order to be defiant, for the sheer sake of disobedience, or to seek his own will for some selfish and sinful goal. He was in fact motivated by virtue and doing his best as he understood it to act accordingly.
The principle previously inculcated into the boy of always stating the first thing that comes to one's mind is, I think, a principle of sin that this could have served as an occasion to break. It is a principle of self-assertion, without regard to injurious consequences, masquerading as "honesty" and "self-expression" (there's individualism and self-assertion for you!) in contrast to the virtues of discretion, forbearance, self-restraint, etc. A school and/or teacher that has taught the boy such a principle is not to be trusted.
In short, I of course agree with your principles; the question here is whether this constituted a proper occasion for the exercise of civil disobedience for the sake of the Cross, and acceptance of the persecution and suffering attendent upon that. On the basis of the report here, I'm inclined to think it did.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 7, 2006 11:36:15 AM
This is another reminder that we need to encourage everyone in Christendom to get their kids out of government schools if it is at all possible for them to do so.
How many more reminders do we need?
Posted by: Clark Coleman | Nov 7, 2006 11:39:23 AM
A couple of things pop out of this story which neither Bloomberg nor the Wall Street Journal address.
First of all, note the success of the Aberdeen School District to train a fourth grade boy to avoid anything that might be perceived as derogatory about a woman, even if something else it has taught him (write the first thing that comes into your head) generates a conflict against that pro-feminist value. “Woman-good, contra-woman bad” has been well-lodged into little Tyler’s conscience.
Second, note the evidence here that Tyler fears violating this feminist value far more than what he chose to endure, viz. public reprimand, public scorn by the woman he steadfastly refused to offend, and public expulsion from school. What does he imagine would have happened if he had answered the question as they insisted?
Finally, note the anti-social behaviors Tyler’s mother reports in the wake of his unjust persecution. These are the very behaviors which the public schools are supposedly set on engineering out of the little masculine psyches in their charge. Yet, in this case they have produced the very behaviors for which they now, no doubt, will criticize.
Posted by: Fr. Bill | Nov 7, 2006 11:49:00 AM
Not that the boy's action here deserved it, but this is an example of why paddling is a good form of punishment. The principal's rebute was hateful and inappropriate.
When I was a boy, I was somewhat frequent recipient of spankings at schools. I seldom cried, and if I did so, it was because of the physical pain, not any emotional pain. I did dread going home and having my parents repeat the teacher's action, but then it was over. In retrospect, I earned those spanking, but I never received and never earned the type of rebuke this boy received. When it was all said and done, I knew my teachers still liked me (I was a likable, if mischievous, little boy) and my parents stilled loved me.
This boy, on the other hand, has received hateful words from one whom he respected and can hardly be expected to ever again feel that she likes him. This woman hardly seems to have the temperament to be an educator of small children. By her words, she has demonstrated that she should be, shall we say, given an opportunity to pursue other employment.
This just goes to demonstrate that there are a lot worse things than a sore butt. God forbid that we hurt their bottoms for a few minutes, but by all means let's wound their spirit.
Posted by: GL | Nov 7, 2006 12:10:20 PM
If the boy was supposed to write the first thing that came into his head, this isn't a very good writing test. I repeat that this seems like a psychological test, not an academic test. That is what you instruct someone when you are trying to ferret out his psychological state. The schools are full of this kind of thing. No matter how alert parents are they can't possibly learn of all the intrusive things the schools do with their children.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 7, 2006 12:25:51 PM
And it is a natural consequence of self-esteem being valued more highly than achievement. When you are mostly trying to teach children to think well of themselves, you almost have to couch tests and assignments in terms of what they think, feel, like, dislike, etc., rather than real subject matter.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 7, 2006 12:27:15 PM
>>>The schools are full of this kind of thing. No matter how alert parents are they can't possibly learn of all the intrusive things the schools do with their children.<<<
It doesn't seem to work on smart kids, who are on to the game, and like to play with the minds of their teachers. it's a subtle form of rebellion, which usually goes unnoticed by the powers that be. A similar rebellion is usually employed against all attempts to impose political correctness upon the students. That "gay" now means "lame" is just one of the more amusing examples.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 7, 2006 1:10:33 PM
"This woman hardly seems to have the temperament to be an educator of small children. By her words, she has demonstrated that she should be, shall we say, given an opportunity to pursue other employment."
The prevailing anti-wisdom in government and university Education Departments could not be better designed to produce a bunch of future Dolores Umbridges.
Posted by: craig | Nov 7, 2006 5:20:00 PM
It doesn't seem to work on smart kids, who are on to the game, and like to play with the minds of their teachers.
In the absence of alert parents who can counteract what the schools do, I think that even the smart kids are susceptible. It's the subtle wearing away of the sense of privacy, the constant carin' 'n' sharin' rhetoric, the assumptions that those whose beliefs differ are beyond the pale. Why else would young people, smart and dumb, liberal and many conservatives, be so reluctant to call homosexuality what it is, for example, and accept that same-sex marriage is okay?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 7, 2006 6:13:47 PM
>>>Why else would young people, smart and dumb, liberal and many conservatives, be so reluctant to call homosexuality what it is, for example, and accept that same-sex marriage is okay?<<<
We must hang out with different groups of kids.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 7, 2006 6:20:30 PM
Ack! Another spam attack!
As one of those "bright" kids I remember perverting these questions. Asked to write about my summer break one year in high-school I wrote a story about how I was captured by aliens and defeated their invasion plots. My teacher challenged the story. I challenged her to prove otherwise.
I was an ass, but I was rewarded with an A.
That being said I find this child's objections laudable though I do agree with GL that this was a teaching moment for the parents. The principal should be drug out of the halls of education by her hair.
Posted by: Nick | Nov 8, 2006 2:56:15 PM
Nice to see that the web master comes back and cleans out the spam.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 9, 2006 6:16:36 PM
We must hang out with different groups of kids.
I wasn't referring to my own kid, or the homeschooled or church kids I know, but to my cousins on the Jewish side of the family, who are dear, sweet people but wholly formed, it seems, by the dominant culture of niceness and total tolerance of everything and anything. Also to surveys I've read of about the attitudes of young people.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Nov 9, 2006 7:59:48 PM
>>>I wasn't referring to my own kid, or the homeschooled or church kids I know, but to my cousins on the Jewish side of the family, who are dear, sweet people but wholly formed, it seems, by the dominant culture of niceness and total tolerance of everything and anything. Also to surveys I've read of about the attitudes of young people.<<<
Based on my own family (which is probably more like yours than you would want to admit), "It's a Jewish thing".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 9, 2006 8:01:18 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004