The video taken in the classroom of Success Academy in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, has gone viral. There are more comments on the Internet than I can gather in one post.
Here is one from Senegal.
Here is a story in the Daily Mail, UK.
Russ Walsh, literacy expert, saw the Eva video and reacted with indignation.
He was even more surprised to read comments by parents who defended the harsh actions and comments of the teacher, tearing up a child’s paper and sending her to the corner with a reprimand.
Walsh cites professional sources that refute fear as a motivational tool for learning.
He concludes:
I believe that it is safe to say that many of the children who attend Success Academy schools come from neighborhood environments where fear and chronic anxiety are the norm. The Success Academy school, rather than providing a safe haven for these fragile young learners, doubles down on fear and anxiety and introduces it into the learning environment as well.
There is no excuse for using fear to intimidate or motivate children. It is simply unacceptable and abusive and ultimately counterproductive to learning. Success Academy can boast of its high test scores, but any serious educator must ask the question, “At what price this very narrow success?”
I cannot help but notice in the video that this white teacher is belittling a young African American child. I am put in mind of the plantation of the Antebellum south, where instead of ripping up a child’s paper, the master meted out forty lashes with the whip.
In Slate, Michelle Goldberg says that these tactics are financed by wealthy elites, but not for their own children. It is what they think is needed for children of color. Goldberg lives in Cobble Hill in Brooklyn, where the Success Academy charter in the video is located. She writes: The schools in my neighborhood teach some children to challenge authority, and others to submit to it.
I’m getting a little tired of hearing this teacher described as “irate” or “losing it”. She was perfectly in control of herself – she simply chose to yell at a kid over a wrong answer. It was intentional.
Leaving out other life experiences, as a bilingual and then SpecED TA I saw many many teachers deal with behavioral issues both minor and major.
The teacher in the video gave every appearance of acting in a practiced and deliberate manner that she deemed professional and appropriate.
Thank you for repeating what should be obvious to all but the most dedicated fanboys and fangirls of $tudent $ucce$$.
π
“practiced” – what a perfect word choice. Methinks she’s had much practice with this technique.
Agreed!
“The schools in my neighborhood teach some children to challenge authority, and others to submit to it.”
There is one element of authority that the community at the neighborhood school that supposedly teaches children to challenge authority will never, ever challenge: the lines on the map that determine who can and can’t go to PS 29. It is never too early to teach little Hildegarde and Django that Success Academies are evil, monstrous places, but what would be even more evil and monstrous is letting the kids who attend them into PS 29. It’s like Louise Day Hicks said: neighborhood schools, neighborhood schools, neighborhood schools.
Here is another piece of commentary to add to the round-up: http://citizen.education/index.php/2016/02/13/success-academy-must-be-about-more-than-test-scores-the-schools-parents-say-it-is/
Good try, Tim. But you were not successful at changing the subject. Success is in trouble for its harsh and inhumane pedagogy. Neighborhood schools are off-topic.
Diane, “neighborhood schools” are the entire point of the Goldberg piece and my comment was very much on topic: I’m just filling in the details that she left out.
Tim,
Do you personally know any child named Hildegarde or Django?
Or is that a special code that I do not speak?
I don’t know a Hildegard, but I do know a Django. He’s nine years old, so he wasn’t named after the movie.
Perhaps the two-fingered Gypsy guitarist.
Tim, what is especially wrong-headed about your post is that PS 29 is in District 15, a District that is specifically TRYING to make sure the middle schools are more integrated. (and yes, the District that Mayor de Blasio lives in).
There are new middle schools popping up every year that value integration. MS 442 and Park Slope Collegiate have a far higher % of low-income students than SA Cobble Hill (where only 1/3 of the students are low income). In fact, Park Slope Collegiate is giving preference to kids from very low income elementary schools to make sure that it doesn’t become too affluent. Why isn’t Success Academy doing the same things with its segregated schools? Success could combine all those affluent students Upper West with much poorer elementary schools in the very same district, but chose not to. Even for middle school! Instead, it is sending the affluent Upper West students out of district for middle school. Say what?!
!
Talk about trying to change the subject!
Hey, idiot Tim . . . . .
Can you ever stop being an . . . . .
IDIOT?
The topic is child abuse, although a little abuse towards you would not hurt here on this blog.
I see much of the reporting makes the wrong-headed assumption that somehow it is a difference of opinion as to whether high test scores are worth the price of children being emotionally abused in the ‘no-excuses’ world. Lost in all the outrage of the side that says it is not is the rejection of the idea that high test scores are in some way equivalent to good education. I think anyone can be trained to score correct answers, but education is different from training — unless you are intentionally trying to keep poor children of color in low-paying jobs or worse, to keep them from challenging power.
Amen.
I communicate with writers for education post and sometimes with Peter Cunningham. While I won’t agree with him on everything, I do think he means well, wants a constructive conversation to continue, and wants good things to happen for students. I think one of the places I start to stray from the same page is when the focus is less on the truth in and more on the craft of communication.
http://educationpost.org/some-friendly-advice-for-eva-moskowitz-and-success-academy/
Here, the friendly advice is to get the S.A. folks together to discuss culture.
“My advice to Success Academy is to bring their entire staff together for a daylong retreat, watch the video, review school practices and policies and ask if there is a culture problem in the networkβs schools or whether they really are just anomalies.”
Good advice, but the focus in the article is mostly on circling the wagons to protect and continue to promote the S.A. brand, possibly make it more responsive to parent concerns.
My issues with S.A. and Moskowitz have less to do with whether or not I appreciate choices and innovations in education (I do)- it’s more about the purposeful and systematic under-funding and undermining of traditional schools, demeaning teachers because of their professionalism and their unions, and propping up the wonder of Eva as her schools operate under conditions no traditional school can.
My comments on that level of enrollment manufacturing and undersight (opposite of oversight), the clear inability of staffers and the S.A. program to deal with the challenges faced in traditional schools serving any and all who come-those are below. Along with my advice for Eva.
It is a hope and a choice when parents get the opportunity to get a child into a “choice” school and away from a classroom impacted by needs S.A. classrooms won’t accept. And I don’t mean “won’t accept” through their high-expectations compassionate and authoritative nurturing that encourages student growth and achievement. I mean the kind of “won’t accept” experienced by parents who have had to manage their lives around suspensions, expulsions and “counsel outs” brought on by behaviors that won’t efficiently align with test score-focused operant conditioning (as opposed to the respect of/mandate to serve any and all individuals with their strengths/talents/abilities). The revelations that S.A. has more of a pattern (not so much a series of “anomlies”) of no tolerance or will to take on the real burdens of public education, when applied to traditional schools brings about accusations of racial intolerance, failure, opening up the valve on the “school to prison pipeline”…and so on. I also advise a PR messaging powwow, but not from the point of view of a communications background focused on how to frost a turd-cake with some slick decorative touches: Try straight up humility and honesty. Something like this (Insert Wayne’s World daydream bit):
Eva approaches the mike:
“I am really nothing special, and certainly no teacher. My school is not one that dares take on the more serious behaviors and challenges that traditional schools and experienced professionals take on every day, and I know that. What I do have is access to a market and some promotional mechanisms that will provide some of the more capable and willing parents and students an escape hatch to greater achievement and opportunity than they might have otherwise realized in schools and classrooms failed by our economy, society, and policymakers. True, we don’t want them all. True, we can’t really just come in and work the same type of magic in a regular classroom, because not all students are so easily trained to comply. But by me simplifying the job for us, we can help some kids get great test scores. Not all, I know, so I promise not to keep comparing S.A.’s results with traditional schools and I ask the press to cooperate in helping keep me humble. What my schools choose to do and how we do it is far different than what other schools are obligated to do. I just want to help those with potential that could otherwise risk getting lost. Thank you.”
Interesting — I read your link and I find Mr. Cunningham’s piece completely dishonest.
He acted as if these reprehensible “teaching methods” (if you can call them that) are in service to a higher goal — getting struggling kids a better education.
But there is not one iota of evidence of that. What there IS is a whole lot of data that implies that it is in the service of getting struggling kids out of there. Why didn’t Mr. Cunningham demand a comprehensive look at what happened to every one of the children who won the lottery for Kindergarten spots since Success Academy began? How many of them remained? How many were replaced by more compliant students? If a parent “chooses” Success Academy but Success Academy can’t teach half the those kids, that’s a pretty miserable statistic. There is not any evidence that the ones they do teach would not do just as well in any public school.
Every time I hear the statistic “11,000 students are happy” I realize that these people intend to deceive. What they should be saying is “Success is educating 1% of the students this way and getting results with some of the ones they don’t have to weed out, so doesn’t that mean something?” Nope. It doesn’t. If Eva Moskowitz was having a smidgeon of the success she claims she is, she would not have demanded a third school for the most affluent kids who live in District 2 long before she opened a 2nd school in neighborhoods where her wait list was longest. She would not have demanded that the SUNY Charter Institute allow her to drop preference for at-risk kids (which they happily complied). She would be trying to serve all the kids on her long wait lists instead of opening yet another school in wealthy neighborhoods and spending who knows how many tens of thousands to market to affluent parents of “gifted” children telling them they could have a free private school education.
The dishonesty of these reformers is shocking. They don’t want to educate the kids who most need it — the want to promote more charter schools for the kids who are easiest to teach. Shame on them.
Dienne: riffing off the comments with which you started this thread, I just saw this on YAHOO.
Link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/disturbing-video-teacher-berating-1st-150710250.html
Note the comments of the parents. Note the placard at the pep rally saying β#StopBashingTeachers.β
From the linked piece:
[start exerpt]
Success Academy held a news conference Friday to fire back at the paper and accuse it of “gotcha tactics” to tear down the school.
“I read the story in the morning, and I thought it was not only unfair β it was insulting,” said Youssef Senhaji, a father of three Success Academy students.
When the video was published, Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz said the incident was an anomaly. The teacher in the video called it a “lapse in emotional control,” according to The Times, which said interviews with 20 current and former Success Academy teachers suggested her actions were extreme but not uncommon.
Senhaji was one of dozens of parents and teachers who attended the Success Academy news conference to express their anger at the newspaper, which they said sold a false narrative about the schools.
For many parents at the news conference, last week’s article seemed to aggravate a perception of The Times as lecturing minority parents in a paternalistic way.Β Success Academy has 11,000 students in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. Its website indicates that 93% of its students are children of color, and 76% are from low-income households.
Last year, The New York Times also wrote a piece that was critical of SA. The report included interviews claiming students in the third grade and above were wetting themselves in classrooms because they felt so stressed out and didn’t want to lose time during standardized tests. The same article described the public shaming of students for poor grades.
“I’m keeping it civilized, because when I read this thing this morning and was home alone, you don’t want to hear what I was saying,” Senhaji added before arguing that The Times was overstepping its bounds by suggesting that parents were unaware of what was going on their kids’ schools.
Natasha Shannon, a mother with three daughters at Success Academy, echoed this sentiment.
“I don’t understand why The New York Times thinks it has to educate me as a parent about the school that I choose to send my children to,” she said.
“I’m not some poor, uninformed parent or someone who is not aware of what’s available in New York City schools,” she added. “I chose Success. I made that choice because it’s the best choice for my daughters.”
[end excerpt]
All that anger and fury from those that canβt be described as βsome poor uninformed parent.β
What about the child that was beaten down by her teacher?
Evidently when it comes to accountability she doesnβt count. Evidently when it comes to responsibility, SA canβt be held responsible. Evidently when it comes to being transparent, Eva M has bigger fish to fry.
Yikes!
π
Those kind of parent comments just break my heart – parents fighting for their child’s right to be abused. Or, at least, their child’s school’s right to abuse other people’s children. I’m not entirely sure which in this case – I get the feeling the parents defending SA are parents of kids who test well and therefore they personally are well cared for, so they have little empathy for “those” kids who can’t “keep up” at a place like Success. But I have met parents who do, in fact, want that treatment for their own kids. My daughters attended a play-based daycare/preschool and always on parent nights when they talked about discipline, there was at least one parent who would say something like, “if he gets out of line, you just whup him and he’ll shape right up”. A few other parent heads would be nodding.
Parents have very different ideas about parenting (including how children should be spoken to and even whether children should be physically struck). Not surprising that parents might have very different ideas ideas about education.
There’s a lot of talk about the effect on the “reprimanded” kid, but just as significant is the effect on the other kids. They’re seeing this abusive behavior modeled as the default, first-choice way to treat someone who makes a mistake or falls short of demands (reasonable or not); *and* for every kid who’s subject to this abuse, there are a dozen or more who are learning to carry it out.
FLERP! – well, they can have different ideas, I suppose, but some ideas are just plain wrong. Neurological research is pretty clear that hitting – and even harsh words – have a very negative effect on developing brains. Science has proven our parents wrong. On his blog Teacher Tom has a response for people who say they were hit/spanked/whupped/etc. as children and they turned out okay – “Are you sure you’re okay? You believe in hitting children.”
Lenny – at the risk of plunging straight over the Niagara Falls of hyperbole, isn’t that sort of the definition of terrorism/hate crime? The attack on the actual target is almost incidental to the message sent to every other potential victim. It’s intended to keep an entire population living in fear.
Parents may have different ideas of education, but I don’t believe for a minute that any parent thinks that their child needs to be belittled and shamed that way, nor that belittling and shaming does anything to teach 6 year old children. It does work to cause them to act out and help you get rid of them sooner.
Success Academy’s “strictness” seems okay to parents whose kids learn easily because those kids aren’t the victims of it. It’s only when your child is the target — who must be humiliated as if that would teach her the right answer — that you realize what this secret sauce really is. How many parents have won the lottery, started their child on the first day, and then pulled their children from Success Academy schools over the years? The fact that no one seems to know the answer to this question is pretty scary, especially when the racist assumption continues to be that “certain” parents want their child to be bullied and shamed into learning. They don’t. And their children are NOT shamed because they are easy to teach. It is only when they are not that their parents realize what a farce it all was. It takes many of them a long time because they are true believers in the kind of rhetoric we heard from the parents whose kids are WANTED by Success Academy. They assume their kid is also wanted, despite the constant suspensions and not sending renewal forms home and long “got to go” lists that Eva Moskowitz claims a Success-trained principal invented out of thin air. So it’s even more tragic when they realize how misled they were.
“I donβt believe for a minute that any parent thinks that their child needs to be belittled and shamed that way, nor that belittling and shaming does anything to teach 6 year old children.”
You might be surprised. Not saying that’s a good thing, but you might be surprised.
Dienne-
“…isnβt that sort of the definition of terrorism/hate crime?…Itβs intended to keep an entire population living in fear.”
Yes, it is the definition of terrorism/hate crime; & as long as we’re “hyperbowling,” π my wife, a retired NYC public school social worker, who doesn’t generally go in for conspiracy theories, suggests that one hidden goal of this sort of one-false-step-&-you’re-dead teaching, along w/the high-stakes, pass-or-lose-everything testing promoted by the same constituency, is to create a permanent underclass who can never get high school diplomas & must spend their lives in menial jobs, totally subservient to the whims of the few who come out on top in that system. Coincidentally, those relatively few kids happen to come primarily from white, high-income families, as opposed to people of color, immigrants, poor, &/or special needs (but still quite capable) kids. If you think of the consequences of this system gaining momentum as its advocates want, & following through to its logical conclusion, that concept isn’t so far-fetched.
I encourage robust discussion in my classes. I want my kids to make informed decisions. I was reading a biography of George Washington to my first graders this afternoon. They were commenting that we have not yet had “a girl president.” One girl suggested me!
I see no value in blind obedience. The behavioral objectives I am adamant about are safety issues. A scissors is not a toy. Stay away from the radiator when the heat is on. No pushing on the stairs. Do not hit anybody.
It’s so sad that these parents are so quick to give charter schools so much flexibility with their kids but when in public schools they yell bloody murder and sue. Do they really believe high test scores equate to real learning. Abuse is abuse, whether in public schools or charters. Allowing untrained,unqualified individuals to discipline your children without accountability is neglect and maybe these parents need to be accountable for allowing this to happen.
Ms. Ravich, I hate this kind of thing as much as anyone here but I wish you and others would stop saying that rich people don’t choose abusive schools for their kids. Rich abusive parents pay big money for abuse and there’s a whole industry that caters to them. I was sent to such a school in the 1970’s.
Uncle Alberts Nephew,
If rich people choose to subject their children to abuse, that is on them. Public schools should not pay for abuse.
I absolutely agree. I forgot to mention that the school I was sent to opened a charter school in DC.
Not “children”! Scholars! Scholars! *How many* times do we have to go over this?
The Daily News writes: “However, the assistant teacher who recorded the video told PIX11 that it was one of multiple videos she’d recorded of Dial interacting abusively with students. ”
Where are these? They should put the rest the speculation that the first video showed only an anomaly.
Boy, Diane!
You REALLY have it in for Eva Moskowitz, don’t you?
Get ‘er!
Rip ‘er to shreads!
I’ll help you and all others. She is a child abuser, plain and simple . . . .
There is no way that this behavior of Dial’s is an anomaly. This is not an exasperated outburst or a teacher simply losing her patience. This teacher clearly has a reservoir of rage boiling inside of her, and she is spewing it all over the kids. Where does this rage come from?? What has happened to this young woman to make her so hateful of children?
Usually, teachers love their students so much that they are willing to work without adequate pay or without adequate resources, and this is a problem. Teachers will do anything “for the kids.” Why? It’s very simple. Teachers love their students in the way that we should all inherently love and want to protect the most vulnerable members of our societies. To do otherwise is unacceptable.
I don’t understand how anyone can be a teacher if they don’t love their students. That has to be the foundation — the love for humanity and the faith in people to grow and change. Sound pedagogy, solid methodology, and creativity are layered on top of that basic, foundational love. What has happened to this teacher that she has only hatred for the children that she spends everyday with?
This teacher needs a serious intervention and some serious therapy. The classroom that she has created is one of terror, and there is no possible way that, given this glimpse into her behavior, Dial can find happiness, satisfaction, or fulfillment in herself as a teacher or as a human being. The children need to be protected from this kind of behavior, and Dial needs to be protected from her own capacity to harm others.
The basic βcreamingβ strategy that Eva employs is this:
STEP 1) Make a list of suspension-worthy infractions that is ridiculously long, arbitrary and all-inclusive, a list that includes minor, trivial transgressions as βnot being in a ready-to-learnβ position.
(In the COMMENTβs section to the John Merrow article on the SUCCESS ACADEMY infractions list, a military veteran wrote in and said,
βI was a military officer, 1967-69 and we did not experience disciplinary processes as asinine as these. In my book manuscript, I produce a memorandum of the policies of Democracy Prep (charter chain), which are even worse.
βUtterly shameful.β )
STEP 2) Identify various undesirable students who are in undesirable categories β¦ in other words, kids who wonβt score as high on standardized tests, no matter how many hundreds of hours of mindless test prep to which they are subjected, or kids who are expensive to educate, if mandatory guidelines for Special Ed. are followedβ
a) undesirable because theyβre Special Ed, i.e. have innate disabilities that require expensive, time-consuming, and labor-intensive intervention β mandated smaller class sized; teachers with advanced certification; regular I.E.P meetings with an I.E.P. team composed of teacher, social worker, adminstrator, psychologists, etc.
b) undesirable because they come from challenging backgrounds β homeless kids, foster care, etc. β and have no parents that can fulfill Success Academyβs demanding parental involvement;
c) undesirable act out through no fault of their own β an innate inability to sit still in the same position for long periods of time due to ADD, ADHID, etc.
d) undesirable because they are brand new to English, and thereβs no one in the home who speaks English.
β¦ the list goes. Indeed, the SUCCESS ACADEMY HANDBOOK (BELOW) says:
βPlease keep in mind that the list of unacceptable conduct and consequences is not exhaustive. Teachers and staff can supplement this Code of Conduct with their own rules for classes and events.β
STEP 3) Use the suspension-worthy infractions list created earlier β that ridiculously long and arbitrary list β so that you can easily target and justify the βcounseling outβ β¦
βItβs in our handbook right here, the one we gave you when your child first started here. Thatβs why we suspended your child. Both you and your child knew the rules. If you donβt like it, leaveβ¦ and go to one of the public schools that are being starved of funding to fund this school.β
Again, the handbook even says the list is βnot exhaustiveβ, and a teacher, on her own, can arbitrarily add to it as she wishes.
4) Keep suspending the until the parent just gives up in frustration, and removes the child from the school:
ββββββ
John Merrow actually got a copy of the Success Academyβs suspension-worthy list, and wrote about it here:
http://themerrowreport.com/2015/10/15/the-rules-at-success-academies/
βββββββββββββββ
JOHN MERROW: βBelow you will find, verbatim, the disciplinary code for Success Academies, taken from the Success Academies handbook, which is distributed to all parents and perhaps others. I discussed aspects of the rule book in my interview with Success Academies founder and CEO Eva Moskowitz.
(If you missed the NewsHour segment when it was broadcast on October 12th, you can find it here:
http://themerrowreport.com/2015/10/15/the-rules-at-success-academies/
βββββββββββββββββ
When you read this list, keep in mind that this list currently applies to Kindergartners β 5 & 6 year-olds (!!!) , or as young as 4 (!!!), if the child has a late birthday.)
Should Evaβs Pre-K program be approved and funded β even though Eva refuses sign any agreement that would include any outside oversight of the school or of lists like the one below β this will then apply to Pre-K students β 4 & 5 year-olds (!!!), or as young as 3 (!!!), if the child has a late birthday.
Without further ado, hereβs the list: (thanks to John Merrow)
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
β1. DISCIPLINE:
β1. VIOLATIONS
βAnytime a scholar violates school or classroom rules or policies, it is considered a behavior infraction. Behavior infractions include, but are not limited to:
β Non-compliance with the school dress code
β Non-compliance with the school attendance policy
β Non-compliance with the code of conduct
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
β1. VIOLENCE and AGGRESSION
βWe must ensure that our scholars are safe at all times in our schools. Success Academy has a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to aggressive or violent conduct that puts the safety of our scholars or staff in jeopardy.
βIn the classroom, we teach our scholars strategies to peacefully handle disagreements. We teach them that violence is never the solution. Scholars who engage in aggressive or violent conduct will be suspended. Scholars who hit because βhe hit me firstβ will also be suspended.
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
β1. SUSPENSIONS and EXPULSION
βScholars who repeatedly disregard directions, compromise the safety of others, or violate our policies may be suspended.
βA short-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar from the school for disciplinary reasons for a period of five days or fewer. A long-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar for disciplinary reasons for a period of more than five days. Expulsion refers to the permanent removal of scholar from school for disciplinary reasons.
βIf your scholar is suspended, a member of the school leadership team will call to inform you. You will receive a suspension letter at pick up or within 24 hours. You should make arrangements with the school for mandatory alternative instruction for your scholar during his or her suspension.
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
β1. DISCIPLINARY POLICY and CODE OF CONDUCT
βIn order to establish and maintain school culture, the following Code of Conduct contains a list of possible infractions and potential consequences. Please keep in mind that the list of unacceptable conduct and consequences is not exhaustive. Teachers and staff can supplement this Code of Conduct with their own rules for classes and events.
βIn addition, violations of the Code of Conduct and resulting consequences are subject to the discretion of the Principal and may be adjusted accordingly. A scholarβs prior conduct and his or her disciplinary history may be factors in determining the appropriate consequence for an infraction.
βThe Code of Conduct will be enforced at all times. Scholars must adhere to the Code of Conduct when at school on school grounds, participating in a school sponsored activity, and walking to or from, waiting for, or riding on public transportation to and from school or a school-sponsored activity. Serious misconduct outside of the school is considered a school disciplinary offense when the misconduct or the scholarβs continued presence at the school has or would have a significant detrimental effect on the school and/or has created or would create a risk of substantial disruption to the work of the school.
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βCODE OF CONDUCT:
βLEVEL 1 INFRACTIONS
β Slouching / failing to be in βReady to Succeedβ position (SPORT or Magic 5 position)
β Calling out an answer
β Chewing gum or bringing candy to school
β Minor disrespectful behavior
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βRANGE OF SCHOOL RESPONSES, INTERVENTIONS, & CONSEQUENCES for LEVEL 1 INFRACTIONS
β Warning/reprimand by school staff
β Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
β Scholar is reminded of what he/she is like at his/her best and of past good behavior
β Scholar is reminded of past poor decisions and provided with productive alternatives/choices that should be made
β Scholar is given a non-verbal warning
β Scholar is given a verbal warning
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
β LEVEL 2 INFRACTIONS
β Committing a Level 1 Infraction after intervention
β Verbally or physically dishonoring a fellow scholar (which includes, but is not limited to, teasing, name calling, being rude, mocking, etc.)
β Verbally or physically dishonoring faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community members (which includes, but is not limited to, being rude, disobeying instructions, etc.)
β Using school equipment (e.g. computers, faxes, phones) without permission
β Bringing electronic equipment to school of any kind without school authorization (which includes, but is not limited to, cell phones, Game Boys, iPods, headphones, pagers, radios, etc.)
β Unauthorized possession or use of a cell phone
β Failing to follow directions
β Failing to complete work
β Being off-task
β Arriving late to school/class and/or violating school attendance policy
β Violating the Dress Code
β Being unprepared for class (which includes, but is not limited to, failing to bring a pencil, not completing homework, etc.)
β Wearing clothing or other items that are unsafe or disruptive to the educational process
β Failure to obtain signatures for required assignments
β Disrupting class or educational process in any way at any time (which includes, but is not limited to, making excessive noise in a classroom, failing to participate, refusing to work with partners, etc.)
β Leaving the recess area during recess without permission from an authorized adult
β Being in an off-limits location without permission
β Failing to be in oneβs assigned place on school premises
β Getting out of oneβs seat without permission at any point during the school day
β Going to the bathroom without permission or at undesignated times
β Making noise in the hallways, in the auditorium, or any general building space without permission
β Inappropriate noise levels in lunchroom, gym, and during arrival and dismissal
β Engaging in unsafe behavior, failing to use recess equipment properly, or failing to follow directions during recess
β Excluding classmates in games/activities during recess
β Littering on school grounds
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βRANGE OF SCHOOL RESPONSES, INTERVENTIONS, & CONSEQUENCES for LEVEL 2 INFRACTIONS
β Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
β Scholar is given a verbal warning
β Removal from classroom for βTime Outβ outside of the classroom (administratorβs office)
β Student-Teacher-Parent conference
β Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
β In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
β Verbal or written apology to community
β In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
β Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
β Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period or expulsion)
β β β β β β β β β β β β
βLEVEL 3 INFRACTIONS:
β Committing a Level 2 Infraction after intervention
β Dishonoring a fellow scholar using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul or discriminatory language
β Dishonoring a faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community member using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul/discriminatory language
β Disobeying or defying school staff or any school authority/personnel
β Using profane, obscene, lewd, abusive, or discriminatory language or gestures in any context (which includes, but is not limited to, slurs based upon race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability)
β Posting or distributing inappropriate materials (which includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized materials, defamatory or libelous materials, or threatening materials)
β Violating the schoolβs Technology and Social Media Acceptable Use Policy (which includes, but is not limited to, using the Internet for purposes not related to school/educational purposes or which result in security/privacy violations)
β Forgery of any kind
β Lying or providing false or misleading information to school personnel
β Engaging in any academic dishonesty (which includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, copying anotherβs work, or colluding/fraudulent collaboration without expressed permission from a school authority)
β Tampering with school records or school documents/materials by any method
β Falsely activating a fire alarm or other disaster alarm
β Making threats of any kind
β Claiming to possess a weapon
β Misusing other peopleβs property
β Vandalizing school property or property belonging to staff, scholars, or others (which includes, but is not limited to, writing on desks, writing on school books, damaging property, etc.)
β Stealing or knowingly possessing property belonging to another person without proper authorization
β Smoking
β Gambling
β Throwing any objects
β Engaging in inappropriate or unwanted physical contact
β Fighting or engaging in physically aggressive behavior of any kind (which includes, but is not limited to, play fighting, horsing around, shoving, pushing, or any unwanted or aggressive physical contact)
β Leaving class, school-related activity, or school premises without school authorization
β Repeatedly failing to attend class, school, or any school activity or event and/or repeatedly violating school attendance policy
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βRANGE OF SCHOOL RESPONSES, INTERVENTIONS, & CONSEQUENCES for LEVEL 3 INFRACTIONS
β Sent to principal/school administrator
β Loss of classroom/school privileges
β Additional assignments which require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)
β Call home to parents/guardians
β Removal from classroom or βTime Outβ outside of the classroom (administratorβs office)
β Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
β In-School disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
β Verbal or written apology to community
β Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
β In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
β Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
β Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)
β Expulsion
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βLEVEL 4 INFRACTIONS
β Committing a Level 3 Infraction after intervention
β Repeated in-school and/or out-of-school suspensions
β Exhibiting blatant and repeated disrespect for school code, policies, community, or culture
β Engaging in gang-related behavior (which includes, but is not limited to, wearing gang apparel, making gestures, or signs)
β Destroying or attempting to destroy school property
β Engaging in intimidation, bullying, harassment, coercion, or extortion or threatening violence, injury, or harm to others (empty or real) or stalking or seeking to coerce
β Engaging in behavior that creates a substantial risk of or results in injury/assault against any member of the school community
β Engaging in sexual, racial, or any other type of harassment
β Possessing, transferring, or using drugs, alcohol, or controlled substances
β Participating in an incident of group violence
β Possessing a weapon
β Charged with or convicted of a felony
β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β
βRANGE OF SCHOOL RESPONSES, INTERVENTIONS, & CONSEQUENCES for LEVEL 4 INFRACTIONS
β Sent to principal/school administrator
β Loss of classroom/school privileges
β Additional assignments that require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)
β Call home to parents/guardians
β Removal from classroom or βTime Outβ outside of the classroom (administratorβs office)
β Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
β In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
β Verbal or written apology to community
β Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
β In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
β Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
β Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not β limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)
β Expulsion
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
The PDF of the relevant pages is here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5mXKGS4xL6iVnlZMzIyWi05eHc/view
βββ-
Reply