Albuquerque Public Schools; Smart Discipline?

In an Albuquerque Journal article entitled, Smart Discipline; an entirely superficial examination is afforded to the District’s response to discipline problems.

A deeper examination would have revealed that discipline problems in the District stem APS’ lack of a discipline philosophy. Philosophy is the connection between a goal and the policy that enables the goal to be achieved. It is the answer to a student’s question, Why not? The absence of a well thought out and grounded discipline philosophy is telling. It could not be more important.

For example; APS routinely permits prohibited behavior on schools campuses. Students who are told that sagging is prohibited; are allowed to sag habitually; in plain sight and in diametric opposition to District Policy.

Sagging, wearing pants so low as to expose underwear, is not the issue. Allowing students to ignore rules is the issue. Allowing students to take charge in school is the issue. Permitting prohibited behavior is the issue.

For the sake of discussion, let’s suppose that the goal is to provide an educationally efficient environment; an environment where teachers can teach and students can learn without distraction. APS’ response was to create a policy to prohibit sagging. They skipped the step of identifying the philosophical statement that connects sagging and the educational efficiency of the teaching and learning environment. That is why they ended up a policy that doesn't work. If the philosophy is that sagging does negatively affect the environment, then why is it permitted? If the philosophy is that sagging doesn’t affect the learning environment, then why is it prohibited?

One of the most basic philosophical statements with regard to effective discipline policy is that, if you have a rule, you should enforce it. Admittedly, it can be argued that enforcing a rule can cost more than the enforcement is worth. In effect, “Yes, sagging does negatively affect the environment, but not as negatively as fighting with kids all day long about their dress.” It is a legitimate point of view. The appropriate course is determined during the identification of a District discipline philosophy. And then based on the philosophy, one either prohibits sagging and enforces the rule, or one allows sagging and moves on to other issues. In no case is it appropriate to accustom children to routinely ignoring rules; a position without philosophical foundation and with far reaching negative consequences.

The second page headline reads; Discipline options smarten up suspensions. In practice, options are used by many administrators to make their own lives easier. If a principal wants to discipline a student with bellicose and powerful parents, the least harsh option is chosen. If the student is obnoxious and has disinterested parents, the harsher option is chosen. The disparate treatment does not escape the attention of either student. Nor does it escape the attention of other students.

Consider the following quote from the article; “At Valley, administrators use community service as a form of discipline. So a student busted for vandalizing the campus might be required to do something to beautify the school. Of course, it’s always on an individual case basis.”

In so far as students are concerned, "On an individual case basis" means only differential treatment, an unfair system unworthy of their respect or allegiance.

“On an individual case basis” is APS speak for permission to choose the consequence which creates the fewest waves. The Board of Education used that exact phrase when creating their policy for dealing with administrators who for instance, are charged with aggravated drunk driving. “On an individual case basis”, allows a favored administrator to escape consequences.

There is another telling quote in the article. “A lot of times, a kid is having a rotten day.” It represents a discipline philosophy that begins with making excuses for a child’s misconduct in order to trivialize the situation. Is this a philosophy that reflects the views of teachers, parents, or students? No, it isn’t. It is an unexamined administrative philosophy that allows administrators to avoid the nastiness of having to enforce the rules by imposing unpleasant consequences.

There are two ways that one can avoid honest accountability for their conduct; one is to muddy the expectations, the other is to corrupt the system by which one is held accountable.

The decision not to write a District discipline philosophy is deliberate. If there is no philosophy against which to measure conduct; conduct cannot be criticized; or, muddied expectations. They function beside the administrative immunity that is provided by the District’s failure to provide a system under which allegations of Administrative misconduct will receive a principled resolution. A principled resolution of a complaint is impartial, beyond undue influence, universally available, and consistent with agreed upon principles.

The simple truth is that the Leadership of the APS cannot provide discipline policies that guarantee an educationally efficient environment for students and teachers. They cannot because in large part, they will not accept honest accountability for themselves. They are not honestly accountable even to the standard that they established for and enforce upon students. They have refused publicly and repeatedly to hold themselves accountable to any meaningful standard of conduct.

Is it any surprise then, that many students make the same choice?