Myths of Inner-City School Teaching

Myths of Inner-City School Teaching

by Dean L. Zeller

Spring, 2005

Introduction

The following is a collection of myths prominent within the inner-city public school system. It is meant to demonstrate common misconceptions about what administration, teachers, and students deal with on a day-to-day basis. While blunt and controversial, it is not meant as a personal attack on anyone involved within the system; it is merely an analysis of what I have observed during my tenure as an inner-city school teacher.

Myth #1: Suspension is an effective method of regulating behavior

It is commonly thought that students are scared of getting suspended by the administration. In actuality, they are scared to be caught in an action that will result in a suspension. The difference is subtle, but important. If there is an imminent threat of administrative punishment, students will work extra-hard to behave, knowing that even the most minor actions could result in suspension. However, once that threat is removed, students have no internal motivation to behave. As a result, students respect teacher authority far less than administrative.

At most inner-city schools, suspension is the primary method of behavior regulation. There are other methods available, such as detention and Saturday school. However, these methods are used for only a fraction of the behavior incidents; the vast majority of students are suspended for misbehavior. I have seen students suspended by the administration for three, five, or even ten days for such minor actions as mouthing off, having a bad attitude, and refusing to do work. Meanwhile, more disruptive and dangerous incidents are left unpunished because the students are able to get away with it without getting caught.

Self-control of one’s own behavior are skills like any other. It is mostly learned over a period of time within the home. Some parents are effective at teaching the right lessons on behavior. Others make little effort or their methods are ineffective. As a result, many students have never learned proper behavior. These students are labeled “chronic misbehavior problems” and are commonly suspended for two weeks at a time. With this system in place, there is little hope for these students to ever learn self-control.

Why is suspension used so frequently if it is proving to be ineffective? Suspension is helpful in the short term by removing the offending student from the classroom. However, it does little to solve the problem for the future. If anything, suspension makes the problem worse by desensitizing students to the only form of punishment used. Students are going to be suspended anyway, so why even try to behave? Students make great efforts to get away with as much as possible before getting in trouble, buts suspension is the usual result. It is justified that removing the offending students allow the other students to learn. However, there are plenty of students willing to misbehave, and it only takes one or two determined students to take completely disrupt classroom procedures.

Myth #2: Teachers are unafraid of their students

Students will do as much as possible to make teachers’ lives miserable. Through trial and error, students learn the specific actions of misbehavior that will result in the most amount of teacher anxiety for the least amount of punishment. There is an extremely high burnout rate among inner-city teachers as a result of the stress and conflict caused by students misbehavior. There is a system of referring students to the administration, but the main solution of suspension remains ineffective at solving the problem (see Myth #1). There are other factors that affect teacher morale, such as political conflicts with administration, but students represent a threat far beyond politics. Student behavior can be dangerous, up to attacking teachers physically. Teachers must able defend themselves against these attacks. The worst punishment the administration is able to give is a two-week suspension. While it takes care of the problem for the duration of the suspension, teachers know these students will return again to cause the same problems. This does little to ease the fear teachers have of students.

Security is an effective solution to the immediate threat students represent. Teachers call security to deal with any situations they are unable to deal with. In most cases, the arrival of security calms chaotic situations quickly. Many teachers abuse the system by calling security for offenses that should be handled within the classroom, such as refusing to do their work or insulting the teacher. As a result, security officers feel their job is unimportant, being considered babysitters rather than officers of the law. Constant calls to security give students the impression they need to behave only when security is around, thus removing their motivation to behave for the teacher alone.

Even the act of calling security can pose to be a challenge. It is not uncommon for security response times to be upwards of five minutes, a dreadfully long time when a student or classroom is out of control. The intercom system is available to call security, but students know by yelling loudly enough they can disrupt the call to request security. While security measures are in place within inner-city schools, generally teachers feel like they are on their own.

Myth #3: Students care for their grades.

There are three categories of students in terms of the extent to which they are motivated to learn in school. The first category is those students that understand the true value of academic achievement. These students realize that knowledge gained now can be used to help their futures. Good grades are important to them, and they are in school to learn and succeed. Naturally, these are the most prized students in the classroom.

The second category understands that a letter grade is a measurement of academic achievement, but not the true purpose of learning skills and information. They are merely focused on getting the better grade. This can be effective at providing motivation, as many students will put forth the extra effort simply to improve their grades. The letter grade alone as a motivation has limited results. Students will fight to do the minimum amount of work possible to get the desired grade. They will argue about every assignment grade and adamantly claim they turned in more work than they actually did. This causes conflict for the teacher, and it can be much easier to simply give the higher grade.

The final category of student do not understand the classroom grade as a concept. They have gone through many years of a school system in which a lack of effort has not prevented them from being held back. Teachers are encouraged by administration to give out passing grades, as their success is partially measured by their grade assignments. As such, students have simply learned that classroom effort is meaningless to their concept of success. They know a grade is assigned, but not the difference between an A and an F. These are the students that cause the most problems for teachers and administration.

Myth #4: Students are treated with respect

The most common teacher complaint about students is disrespect. Students refuse instructions, mouth off, and cause various disruptions within the classroom. Teachers refuse to take this disrespect, resulting in yelling. I have never heard more yelling and threats before coming to the inner-city school system. Teachers constantly yell at their students. When yelling is no longer effective, students are sent to the administration where they are yelled at some more, and possibly get suspended for their actions. Parents are called in to the school so students can be yelled at my multiple people simultaneously. It seems that nobody realizes the emotional attack yelling represents, and the long-term effects of such attacks. Students yell back in order to defend themselves and their sense of self esteem, while others simply ignore the yelling, accepting it as a part of school life.

If teachers are going to demand respect from students, they must show they can give it first. Giving respect to misbehaving students is not easy. Yelling represents a direct attack on students’ self esteem and quickly becomes useless as a means of regulating student behavior. Students become so used to yelling it loses its effectiveness. Yelling should be reserved only for those incidents of misbehavior in which the safety of the students or teacher is threatened. Over time, students understand this respect, and make their best efforts to respect the teacher back. The teacher must be understanding and respectful to students, even when their efforts towards behavior are not effective.

Conclusions

The inner-city public school system is unlike any other work environment. The stress level is quite high, as well as the pressure to succeed. It is only through a solid understanding of the students will progress be made. Without this understanding, the system will simply perpetuate in the same way for the future.

Myths of Inner-City School Teaching 1.02 – Page 3