A Fine Line

Final exam time is coming and here’s something that probably every high school teacher knows, but maybe you parents aren’t aware of. Kids cheat. Lots of them. Except in Shorewood, of course.

Some of our country's best cheaters become valedictorians, some of them end up CEO's and the unlucky ones, who have probably been unlucky throughout their lives, will get caught. They’re the kids that the other kids give the stolen money to when they see a cop coming. If your kid is that one, remind him again about the cost of cheating and that he’s the kind of person who will never, ever get away with it. On the other hand, maybe this will turn his luck around! Cut it out and tape it to that lastest detention slip.

Water bottles: Students write answers on the inside of a bottle’s label, then reattach it so the writing is visible through the water during the test.

Cell phones: In addition to text-messaging answers to one another, students take pictures of the test, then beam the images to friends. Others photograph their notes ahead of time.

M&M’s: After assigning each candy color a multiple-choice letter, students line up M&M’s on their desks in the order of the answers.

MP3 Players: Before the test, students record answers and then listen to them through earphones during exams.

Invisible-ink pens: Kids write notes or formulas on a sheet of paper in invisible ink, then use the pen’s ultraviolet flashlight during the test to reveal what they’ve written.

Personal digital assistants: Students send information to one another through their PDAs and use the devices to store formulas and notes.

Sorry for ratting you out kids, but I have to admit you’re pretty clever. And just as I was beginning to worry about the future of our country…

This information from Teacher Magazine’s, Amanda Jones (unless of course, she lifted it from some other rag).

I love “Supernanny“. Love the show, love the nanny. She says everything we all want to say to each other but want to hear from no one. “Supernanny” is the name of a so called reality show, the star of which is an English nanny named Jo. She is approachable, warm, open and dead on right. She’s actually a parent nanny, who makes a show of teaching parents to parent. She reminds me of my older sister, without the teasing and torment. She says it like it is.

As a parent, I would not have been able to handle the input. I was the kid in the pool trying to catch my next breath while filling my mouth with water churned by my own panicked thrashing. I would not have been a good co-star. I do appreciate the parents who acknowledge their problems and invite her in for a week of tough love to give and receive. As I watch, I am in disbelief about how naughty these kids seem to be. It may be just that they need big houses to film in, but most of these families seem pretty darn wealthy. But these naughty, possibly spoiled kids do what they want, when they want and to whom they want. They punch, whine, break, throw, scream and bully while parents either tune out, adapt or leave under the guise of having to go to work at their 80 hour a week jobs. The power in these homes is not imbalanced, as it ought to be, and the kids are the first to know it.

We’ve all seen this many times in families other than ours, of course. The kids who get what they want through threat of public embarrassment. The kids who take the power through great acting in the categories of pouting and crying, stomping and ranting and the ever popular arms crossed over chest mute refusal. As a teacher I think it’s funny when I see it, but as a parent, things didn’t seem that humorous.

I think this show is so popular because we all know that Supernanny is right. She makes the family a team, parents who are strong and clear, with children who have to do time when they do crime. The rules of civilized life are laid out, consequences of misbehavior determined and there is no negotiating, discussing, engaging or manipulation. Kids break a rule? There’s a warning. Break it again and it’s off to the naughty spot. Re-state the infraction and assume time in the penalty box. Kind of like hockey without the blades. After time is up, no lectures, no belittling, no apologies from the parent. Just one from the child. A hug and it’s over.

I see parents trying their best to handle children without seeming like ogres or pushovers but sometimes it just gets silly. We find ourselves saying things like, “Okay, I’m leaving without you! I mean it. I’m going!“ Come on, now. We know we’re not going to ditch the kid in the toy aisle of Target to make his way back to Shorewood with a nook and a teddy bear by himself. The kids know it too.

Parents need to be willing to set up boundaries, consequences and then follow through consistently. Moms and Dads need to work as teams, sending the same message and giving the same reactions. Single parents need to make clear to people involved in their children's care just what the standards are and what is acceptable behavior in your home. Children do like limits, although they’ll say they don’t. They appreciate being called on misbehavior, although they’ll swear they didn’t do anything wrong. They are constantly testing our backbones and are genuinely disappointed when we prove not to have one. They’ll try to engage us in negotiating, arguing, and defending our decisions and then wish for a stronger parent when we bite. They’ll never admit it, but as reflective adults we know that it’s true. So thanks, Supernanny. You have brought forward a problem shared by parents everywhere. Wussiness.

When Turn Off the TV Week is finally over and Supernanny is back on, invite her in. No one needs to know.

I just received a notification that reads the following:

Google has a feature where you can type in your phone number (i.e.414-123-4567), hit search and it will not only list your name and address but provide a map to your front door. If a child gave out their phone number someone could find him or her easily.

You can remove your number from the listing. When you search your phone number it provides an option to remove your listing. Unless you have a cell phone or unlisted phone as your primary contact you may want to retain your security by removing yourself.

(Go to www.google.com and try it. You'll see.)

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about words. The words we choose come from mental bins full of other peoples’ labels for things. In the field of education, we use some startlingly revealing words that make value statements about children. It's old thinking, but still with us. Take for example the word “gifted”. This must have some sort of puritanical root because I’d bet money that the gifter of the gift is a religious figure, let’s say…God? So assuming that is true, it would mean that for some reason some people got more of something than I did, and that makes me feel bad. I know the mysterious ways thing and it doesn’t make me feel any better.

In schools, the word gifted is usually used on a kid that flummoxes teachers to the point that they don’t know exactly what to do for them. When you think about it though, isn’t the word gifted more of a white flag term educators use when they run out of knowledge to impart at that child’s grade level? Instead of us saying we’re now flummoxed, and accept that term for ourselves, we put it on children and have them wear the “gifted” label instead. The label that says, "I won the race through the curriculum!"

Just as gifted is what students are, accelerate is what teachers do. It happens to those students who can’t slow down enough to keep up with the bulk of the class. In fairness to the many excellent teachers out there, acceleration is what good teachers do, sans the term or the prestige. We should be accelerating and decelerating every hour of every day for different students in different subjects and through different sets of circumstances. The accelerated metaphorically drive off in a Porsche while the rest of the class shows up in Chevettes. But wait, here come the decelerated , galumphing down the street on three tires and a rim. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

Words bear emotional weight. If we find ourselves seeing children as gifted or accelerated we are also seeing them as not gifted or slow. If we re-think the way we talk, who knows? Maybe we’ll re-think the way we think.