One thing that I was going to note yesterday about Dude's posts in particular here is that:
a) none of us (including ABQmom) were
present for this interaction. We don't know exactly what else was happening in that classroom at the time, we don't know the particulars of the other students in that classroom, etc. I can come up with a number of very reasonable explanations for the teacher's seemingly totalitarian response to this. Now, that's not to say that changes wouldn't improve things, which is where careful advocacy would come into things. I think that it's clear that ABQmom is also seeing that need and is taking steps on that front.
b) using inflammatory language in our own THINKING ("immature" "irrational" and most cringe-worthy, "victim" and "abuse of power") is seldom helpful regardless of truth. It is counterproductive to even be thinking those things, because our righteous indignation colors the things that we write, say, and hear. Particularly, as I noted above, since we have no way of knowing just how accurate our perceptions are when we haven't witnessed things firsthand to begin with. People who fail to understand my DD's disability may well endanger her life, but they are not "victimizing" her on any level, no matter how personal it
seems to us at the time. (And trust me, it feels pretty darned personal when it's family or friends doing it.) It's
thoughtless, but it isn't malicious. That is an important distinction.
I am coming at this from a compassionate... but ultimately
pragmatic stance. I understand that this is the issue that ABQmom is struggling with, too-- there's what is obviously "best" for her child in the here and now, but there is also the "real world" argument. That's the fundamental nature of disability advocacy; do you use challenges as "suck it up" moments? Or do you attempt to smooth them out so that they aren't challenges anymore? Parents of younger kids tend toward the latter, but as they become adolescents, you begin to see the wisdom in the former since they'll have to live in the world the way it IS, not the way we wish we could make it.
My child is MY sole concern, but that isn't true for anyone but my spouse and I. Any teacher, coach, employer, family member or friend has
other competing interests in mind. If I want to get results, I have to attempt to understand that perspective.
At the risk of sounding preachy, my daughter also has a hidden disability. She is also entitled to both privacy and accommodations, and doesn't always get either one. One of her Aspie friends
outed her in very humiliating fashion in front of a large group of her peers; literally called the disability out loudly in what came across as a mocking fashion and involved the phrase "wouldn't want to be your cause of death or anything," while creating a situation that posed that exact risk to her. Basically this child was telling my daughter to LEAVE because she was planning to pose an imminent risk to her life. As a parent, you'd better believe that torqued me, because ultimately it poisoned the activity for good for my child, who was understandably mortified beyond words, and hurt at the callous exclusion. DD still wilts when she recalls that incident-- though she never "blamed" the other child, FWIW. Disability or not, that outburst damaged my child both socially and emotionally
on the basis of HER disability. I had to let it go because it wasn't JUST about my child. I mention this because my mommabear impulse is alive and well, but I've learned the hard way that there are some no-win situations. All that pursuing that one would have done is leave the other mom incredibly pissed off at my temerity to think that her child's disability wasn't a good enough excuse for me, and made BOTH children a pain in the neck for the people running the activity. If it
hadn't involved a child with a disability... it would have been addressed quite differently. Probably. I mention this to note that teachers (and others)
frequently have to deal with such 'competing needs' scenarios-- as parents mostly do not.I'd find out a lot more information with an open mind before assuming that this was about THIS child in particular, and not the class as a whole. The class probably includes other children with disabilities (which the teacher must not discuss with another parent) and serious behavioral challenges (which would lend themselves to maintaining a lot more rigid kind of classroom control lest things slip irrevocably into open chaos).
What are the teacher's goals here? I seriously doubt that she went into teaching to get a power trip from "dominating" students and "intimidating" them into "submission." KWIM? I've seen a few of those, and I'm well aware that they exist, but they are really pretty rare. Realistically, most behavior like this is motivated by a desire to maintain order FOR the students, not "of" them. Gender can also play a role in how tight classroom control has to be with a particular mix of kids. I know. I was once a 27yo physical science professor who was routinely called "
Mrs. Howler" by male students who viewed my every statement as a suggestion open for debate rather than a direction or mandate. In some classes, it was fine... and in others, there was a large enough nucleus of those kids that I couldn't tolerate a lot of that during class time because of what it did to undermine my authority and reduce instructional time for everyone else. I directed such students to see me in my office rather than bringing up individual beefs/quirks/complaints in a class with 100+ classmates, and I was often quite firm about it with repeat offenders. I'm sure that a few of them would have characterized my statements to them as a public "dressing down" as well.
I realize that this is a hard thing for most people to understand without having been in one of these positions-- your authority is largely a function of the students' willingness to give it to you. Not all of them will, no matter how "worthy" you are of that respect; it's not about you as a teacher for some students, but about what you represent, which you don't control. You can tolerate maybe 5-8% who won't respect your authority (maybe), but if that climbs to 10-15%, you can be in real trouble with an entire class because it turns into a feeding frenzy or lynch mob. If that happens, learning is pretty much off the table entirely for everyone. This can even present actual danger for students and teacher, depending on the group of students and the course involved. I have a friend who was
assaulted by a seventh grader in her class who was unhappy with his grade. This class (because she was new) had ALL of the known 'problem' kids in it that nobody else wanted. That incident involved unions, lawyers, and administrative leave for the teacher (which deeply saddened her for the loss of learning that it represented for the class as a whole). Again-- anecdote, but since Dude wanted to know what kind of risk a 7th grader could possibly pose.
Is this making sense? The teacher's perspective here is FAR more complicated than interactions with any single student. Her shortness with ABQmom may have been frustration that this is (yet another?) parent who is unable/unwilling to see that larger picture.
Honestly, the idea that a teacher
could calmly, gently, and privately have a ten to fifteen minute back-and-forth conversation with a single student about inappropriate behavior or tangential explanations of non-curricular issues... DURING CLASS... is absurd. How many other children would be left at loose ends and not learning while this took place? What would
that do to the teacher's authority and ability to maintain classroom control?
It will be interesting to see how the teacher responds to ABQmom's response. I am hopeful that her measured and calm advocacy will yield good results.
