True. But the connotative difference between “unusual” and “exceptional” are obvious. Usual = normal; unusual = abnormal. And nobody wants to be abnormal. Exceptional has connotations of uniqueness and being special. It is a much more positively-tinged word than your proposed replacements. In fact, the secondary definition given by M-W is “better than average; superior”.
What comes out, to me at least (I’m not at all ascribing this to you), is that we subconsciously understand that “exceptional” is a positive descriptor and so when it’s used for “negative” traits like disability or behavior issues we bristle that it is somehow incorrect usage. Probably folks thinking of the second definition rather than the first one (“forming and exception; rare”).
Fully agreed. It’s a crappy phrase that reeks of trying to take the existing terminology and put a positive spin on it. Not unlikely “differently able” instead of “disabled”.
“At promise” doesn’t even make grammatical sense. “With promise”, maybe.
The kids this is referring to are most likely the ones with unstable family, school, and home histories (foster care, parental incarceration, homelessness, that kind of thing) and their school work is reflecting it to the point where a child may not even be able to attend mainstream classes.
I can’t find a link anywhere, but I have definitely heard and read about schools who did things like refer all children who are not living with both biological parents, regardless of why, for ADHD evaluation. (Would that happen? Other people have expressed skepticism at something like this.) That doesn’t make sense for more reasons than I could even list, not the least of which is that ADHD, contrary to what many people think, does not cause violent, antisocial behavior. Sure, a violent child may have it, but there are going to be other things going on in the meantime.
My father moonlighted as a substitute teacher from the early 1960s until the early 00s, and he always said that the wealthiest schools had the worst discipline problems; they just covered it up better.
A child does not have to be performing poorly to be classified as “at-risk”. A kid whose parents didn’t finish high school and don’t speak English is at risk; a kid who had cancer last year is at-risk; a foster kid is at risk. It doesn’t matter if these kids are making straight As and have a full ride to Yale, they are still “at risk”.
Thanks for bringing clarity here. Both terms lead people into unclear thinking; it’s just that one side thinks they can corral Orwell onto their team and call kids gangbangers.
And certainly there’s something to be said for recognizing the strengths that kids bring to school, and recognizing that kids from privileged backgrounds have, through no fault of their own, a lot more latitude for fucking up than kids from less privileged backgrounds. Kids living in high-poverty situations don’t get nearly the slack cut them as wealthier kids, for example, when it comes to behavior. And when kids get labeled “at risk,” often the next term that gets trotted out is “tough love,” which is too often used as an excuse to bully and abuse kids who already have enough on their plates.
By all means we need to recognize that kids come to the classroom with different needs. My student whose dad was violently schizophrenic and who lived in a basement with 9 other family members was at-risk, and it showed up in his schoolwork, and we needed to address that.
But holy shit, if “at-risk” is conjuring images of drug-dealers and tiny assassins, maybe it’s not a super useful term. We gotta do better.
There’s two competing narratives right? On some level, people like it when kids that come from adverse circumstances fail, because it reinforces the idea that bad families, bad parents, the wrong sort, lead to kids that aren’t salvageable. Resources should be spent on the kids who deserve it, who come from families that “actually give a shit” about them. I mean, if someone’s own family doesn’t think enough of them to provide them with appropriate support, they clearly aren’t worth much.
I know that sounds really radical, and I am certainly not accusing anyone in this thread of having that attitude, but it absolutely does exist. The narrative that “at-risk” is euphemism for “bad seed” instead of a very literal description of a kid’s situation is beyond frustrating. And honestly, as long as that narrative is part of how a lot of people see the world, whatever term we use will soon adopt the same baggage.
It’s a professional observation based on nearly two decades of working in schools where the populations covered the full spectrum of socioeconomic class.
Why don’t you ask Velocity for a cite that the term “at-risk” is the same as “does drugs, in a gang”? This thread is filled with misinformation about what means to be “at-risk”, but that doesn’t apparently bother you.
It’s unclear whether Shodan is demanding proof that people like it when their beliefs are confirmed, or whether Shodan is demanding proof that people believe that children from adverse circumstances are destined for failure, or whether Shodan is demanding proof that, even though both of these phenomena occur SUPER OBVIOUSLY ALL THE FUCKING TIME, they occur in conjunction.
In any case, I don’t find the demand especially compelling.
“No educators, no law enforcement will no longer be able to call our young people who make a mistake ‘at-risk,’” Jones-Sawyer said. “We’re going to call them ‘at-promise’ because they’re the promise of the future.”
Since this is a state law, I wonder if this is a violation of free speech. In other words, if I as a teacher call a student at-risk and suffer consequences for it, haven’t they violated my rights?
No, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Jones-Sawyer is just wrong in how he is describing the law (not to mention the double-negative in the quote).
There is no compelled speech, prohibition on speech, or any such thing in the law. It just changes the terminology in a handful of statutes, with the hopes that it will encourage school districts, and perhaps the state education department, to change their terminology.
As for the specific example you give, there are many, many things a teacher is not allowed to call a student without risking being fired. Some districts may add “at-risk”, but I kind of doubt it. Even if they do it’s not a free speech issue. I don’t think you want a primary or secondary education system where teachers are protected from firing for saying anything they want.
What it has showed me, and what it has always shown me, is that we are unwilling to do what needs doing in order to help a whole lot of kids. Remove them from their parents and the destructive behavior. Do you have any thought as to why we don’t?
Are you under the impression that educational authorities cannot take adverse action against teachers for what they say at the workplace because of the First Amendment?
I mean, I hope you’re not seriously suggesting this. It’s patently absurd.
It’s not just destructive behavior. It’s not usually destructive behavior. It’s poverty. Even if we wanted to take people’s children from them for the sin of being poor, where on earth would we put them?
Maybe a dumb question, but do the kids even hear the terms that administrators and teachers use to talk about them, and if so why?
Or is it likely the case that the children never hear these terms? If that is the case then this is even more stupid, because PC 1 is fighting PC 2 for control of terms to label others.
Come up with a system to fix the poverty, AND the behaviors that seems to cause that poverty. Just doling out money, or money per kid, or allowing/disallowing the use of narcotics, or housing them all together, or bussing them off to other schools etc etc
What is needed is to change the cultures of the economically downtrodden and give them agency in their own lives. But so far, NOTHING from either side of the aisle has worked, and likely nothing WILL work until both sides are striving for the same thing
Much easier to point fingers and lay blame. THAT is our country today and I am getting more and more ashamed of our country and the supposed “leaders” daily.
Eliminating behaviors that seem innocuous but contribute to the perpetuation of an underclass is a simple, cost-free move to get us moving in that directions…
But obviously some people have strong objections to it.
(Would that happen? Other people have expressed skepticism at something like this.) That doesn’t make sense for more reasons than I could even list, not the least of which is that ADHD, contrary to what many people think, does not cause violent, antisocial behavior. Sure, a violent child may have it, but there are going to be other things going on in the meantime.