Printer-friendly versionAt my school, we often call a student’s misbehavior a “poor choice.” A staff member suggested that the phrase unintentionally promotes a bias against the poor. I appreciated that insight. Wouldn’t it be much more accurate—and equally effective—to say, “That choice was disrespectful,” or “The choice you made disrupted our learning?”
We agreed, that in general, the best practice is to name the behavior specifically and avoid using general adjectives. For instance, instead of referring to a student who cheated as “sneaky,” a broad and judgment-rich word referring to her character, we should simply say that she cheated. In conversations with that student and her family, we certainly emphasize that the act of cheating does not demonstrate integrity. But we should not label her as conniving. We must be careful not to confuse students’ missteps with their value as a person.
If we want our students to learn from their mistakes, we must be deliberate in calling them that: mistakes. Errors in judgment. Learning opportunities. We must model the truth that words are powerful, and should be used with reverence, and deliberation. I’m reminded of this poem (the author is unknown):
Be careful of your thoughts, for your
thoughts become your words.
Be careful of your words, for your
words become your actions.
Be careful of your actions, for your
actions become your habits.
Be careful of your habits, for your
habits become your character.
Be careful of your character, for your
character becomes your destiny.
We must honor the open, yet-to-be-determined destinies of our students; we must make sure that we mean what we say.
Craven is a language arts paraprofessional in Louisiana.
Comments
Good advice, I actually have
Good advice, I actually have a poster of the saying in my classroom. However, it is not a poem, Ghandi is credited with the saying.
To keep true to the
To keep true to the intentions of this topic would be to call the student what they are. A cheater is a person who is conniving or dishonest, it is what it is. Perhaps attaching the negative connotation to invoke shame at their actions would have a better effect than simply telling them they cheated and made a bad decision. We have to stop catering to peoples feelings all the time if we want them to stop making the bad decisions. Hurt someone's feelings, or embarrass them, and they are less likely to repeat the offense again. It's a sad fact that as animals we do not tend to learn unless something is painful for us. We will simply continue to make the same mistakes, repeatedly in some cases, unless there is some sort of drawback attached to the commission of the error.
I, and many in education and
I, and many in education and psychology would agree, that shaming is not an effective way to educate a child. In fact, students are less likely to follow your directions if you embarrass them, or treat them in a way they feel is unfair. I also am sure that the world is ripe with examples (my own life included), where we have learned to make better decisions because we were inspired with an alternative, and didn't necessarily have a "painful" experience with a previous one.
I certainly am not advocating for omitting consequences to a student's choice. I just mean to draw attention to the fact that sometimes the words we use carry weight and bias that we don't even think about.
You cannot "Shame" someone
You cannot "Shame" someone into changing their behavior. Shame is a damaging emotion that has no benefit beyond harm. Guilt on the other hand is an emotion that can assist in changing behavior. Guilt = "I have done something wrong/unworthy toward another and I must make amends." Shame = "I am wrong/unworthy." At its core, shame does nothing but destroy. I encourage all to check out Ordinary Courage, a blog by Brene Brown, DSW. She is a leading researcher on Shame and Shame Resilience. Labels shame! Pointing out behaviors that do harm and hurt relationships can assist a person in looking at their behavior and, perhaps, hopefully change the behavior.
I remember very clearly a
I remember very clearly a spelling/vocabulary test that I cheated on in 8th grade (I'm 39 now - it's had a lasting impact). I will spare the readers the long story of the abuse and neglect I endured at home and the hunger pangs I felt that day of the test. All I remember is that my teacher had once complimented me on my spelling ability and I cherished that compliment dearly -having recieved none before from this teacher. I wanted to impress her so badly but my living situation did not allow time for trivial things like cramming for spelling tests. I'm not making excuses - cheating is wrong but sometimes things aren't so clear cut. The teacher caught me looking at a list under my desk and simply took my paper. I was devastated though we never talked about it. I never did it again. As a teacher, I have found that this experience has given me better insight into my students' actions. Many of them do not need my criticism or shame-placing. Forgiveness and compassion seem to go a lot further.
Poor has more than one
Poor has more than one meaning. Why would we limit our childrens understanding of a word? Lying is lying, cheating is cheating and misbehaving is misbehaving. Children are very intelligent and can understand when and how to use a word in proper context. Misbehaving or breaking a rule is a "poor choice".
Cheating is cheating indeed.
Cheating is cheating indeed. But is it fair to label a child who cheats once a "cheater-" a word which essentially brands a student's character as less righteous than his/her peers? My belief is that it is not. That is what I mean. Label the behavior, not the child.
Poor does have multiple meanings, but they are not unrelated. I believe we should be deliberate in our language and not knowingly use phrases that perpetuate biases.
Children are indeed very
Children are indeed very intellignet. And very different in their ability to interpret abstact concepts such as misbehave, lie and cheat. Those of us raising children on the autism spectrum know that our children's brains process information differently than the 'typical' brain and their interpretation will kely not be the (well) intended message shared. Concrete language such as 'if you take Susie's pencil and refuse to give it back, the other kids in the class will not want to be your friend and the teacher will have to move you away from the other children so you can't reach their belongings'.
Thank you. This summer,I have
Thank you. This summer,I have spent some of my time learning about "loaded"words. It was like looking at a totally different language. What I found out is that loaded words are an attack and a way of disrupting communication with someone you have labeled as other. So,in that case, you don't have to change your point of view or consider someone else's. No wonder we have such a problem with communication!