Anybody remember the brilliant movie ‘Amadeus’?

There’s a terrific scene where after a symphony concert one of Mozart’s rivals is trying to make him look bad, and tells the Emperor that the piece played had ‘too many notes’.  Here is a link to the scene to get the full impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU

Of course the suggestion is ridiculous, and at the end of the scene Mozart says, knowing full well the Emperor has no idea what he is talking about and is simply repeating what sounds good from his ‘authorities’:  ”Which notes should I cut, your majesty?”

Which brings me to emails I get once in awhile, where a teacher employs Classroom Discipline 101 techniques, and things are going well and wild classrooms are finally coming to order, but a disgruntled student who can no longer disrupt the education going on complains to the administration.

You guessed it–admin tells the teacher the rules are ‘too tough’.  Admin backs the student, parents back the student, disaster ensues.

Well, I have never had this problem personally, because there is nothing wrong with my rules, they are within the ed. code and my administrators have been very content knowing by some miracle students behave in my classes and they rarely have to deal with a student sent from my room.  But, if this did happen, my first question to the parent and/or administrator would be:

“Which rules should I cut, your Majesty?”  (Your Majesty is optional, not recommended actually).

You see, my experience is that when people stand on weak logical grounds they tend to keep things vague and general, and when forced to specify in this instance it will become clear that every rule has a solid rationale that facilitates learning, and none are ‘too tough.’

Unless, of course, you have low expectations for behavior.  So if someone did pick out a specific rule, say, ‘students are to be on task at all times’, and say it was too ‘tough’, I would say, ‘Yes, if you have low expectations for student behavior’.  Then point out the logical alternative:  ”So, students should not be on task at all times.  Okay, what should they be doing in class then exactly?  How much time should I allow for goofing off, cell phone calls, computer games and desk throwing? After all, I don’t want to give the impression that we should be learning at all times.”  Of course you don’t have to adopt my sarcasm, that’s just my style ’cause I find it fun.  But you can get the point across firmly.

I have high expectations for students’behavior;  no, I don’t babble about high expectations, I have them– and you should too–it’s good for you and for the students.  It is not good for disruptive complainers and people that interfere with the educational process, so of course they will complain.  Who comes first here, the disruptor or the disrupted?

Now, armed with this information, if it happens to you in the future, tell me specifically what rule is objected to, and we’ll take from there how exactly you might reply.  The book explains the rationale for everything.

Here’s the thing gets me a bit miffed: none of these people complain that their lousy discipline methods are not working, that seems to be okay.  It’s okay if students and teachers endure disruption and disrespect and inferior learning every day as long as the methods du jour handed down by theorists who couldn’t get a class under control if there life depended on it are employed.  Sheesh.

It is important to understand that if you are at a public school the ed. code trumps administration, and if you are within your bounds they should not be telling you you cannot use my time-tested, effective, high-expectations rules.

Okay MPT’s,  resist evil and let’s get on with our jobs–teaching.

Cheers,

Craig