Forty-two schools in Utah are doing it the right way! Woohooooo!
According to Jennifer Toomer-Cook of the Deseret Morning News, these schools have adopted a research-based approach to promoting appropriate behavior. Here’s a quote from her story:
A cluster of Utah schools thinks it has found a way to change the way students behave and, in turn, improve academics, prevent bullying and possibly stave off the kind of violence seen in last week’s deadly Minnesota school shooting.
The Utah Behavior Initiatives Project, implemented in 42 schools and grounded in research, aims to prevent bad behavior by teaching, demonstrating and rewarding the good. Schools track data, keep what works and throw out what doesn’t.
It sounds pretty basic: Reinforce the behavior you want to see.
But schools often focus on disciplining students who get out of line — something some educators say is far easier than teaching a teenager what it means to be respectful, when his daily interaction is anything but.
Utah’s Behavior Initiatives (UBI) is a cooperative venture of several groups in Utah focused on staff development (especially, the Utah Personnel Development Center) and the Utah State Office of Education Special Education Services. These folks really deserve credit.
I just took a quick look at the What Works Clearinghouse. There doesn’t appear to be much new to report. I’m still holding out hope for them.
Under the headline “Arnold’s Plans Bad for Special Ed Kids,” Jim Woodhead (a former special education teacher) explains why he thinks California (USA) Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget and reform proposals are likely to be harmful to students with disabilities. Although one might differ with some of his reasons, Mr. Whitehead argues strongly in support of sustaining funding for special education. For that he deserves plaudits.
I stumbled across another example of loosely-construed guidance about effective teaching that is full of buzz words and phrases such as the very popular “brain-based learning.” I suppose there must be some sort of learning that is not brain-based, but I have a hard time imagining it. Perhaps I’m thinking with my muscles instead of my brain?
In a press release, Daniel Janik (apparently an M.D., of Intercultural Communications College, Honolulu, HI, USA) touts his ideas about education, “Neurobiological Learning (NL) theory.” The release is chock-a-block with gobblygook. Here is a sample:
Because trauma is historically one of the most effective forms of teaching and learning, I focused on understanding traumatic learning in the clinic, classroom and within the brain. The hardest part of this work was translating neurobiological learning theory into a form of effective, but non-traumatic learning – searching for a second learning pathway if you will. What resulted when we applied NL theory in a distinctly non-traumatic manner was curiosity-based, discovery-driven, mentor-assisted, transformational learning!”
Given the clarity of that description, one could hope for evidence about benefits, no? Those hoping to learn about the outcomes are welcome to review the press release. Before doing so, I recommend lowering expecations to avoid disappointment.
Recent Comments