"“When people refer to students being at-risk, I do feel like it puts negative expectations on these students,” said Parker, who lives in Perris, Calif., and is enrolled in a diploma program at SIATech, a high school dropout recovery program for students ages 16 to 24.
“I believe calling students at-risk seems as if they are doomed already, and as if the expectation is to fail in life.”
Nowhere in that paragraph does she say that she was referred to or heard someone call any other student “at-risk”. I would think that teachers or administrators don’t go around labeling kids willy nilly, and for sure not to their faces. That flies in the face of common sense.
So, in my eyes, the only people who use this term are the admin or the teachers, to OTHER admin or OTHER teachers.
Then if this category of student is “at-promise,” what do we call the other students?
By this California-regulation logic:
[ul]
[li]If a student comes from a two-parent family, he is “at-promise”; if he comes from a single-parent family, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student gets straight A’s, he is “at-promise”; if he gets straight-F’s, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student comes from a wealthy family, he is “at-promise”; if he comes from an impoverished family, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student never touches drugs, he is “at-promise”; if he is addicted to drugs or deals drugs, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has never been involved in a gang, he is “at-promise”; if he is heavily involved in gangs, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student is of a privileged race, he is “at-promise”; if he is of a discriminated-minority race, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has many good role models in his life, he is “at-promise”; if he has no good role models at all, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student exhibits a great attitude, he is “at-promise”; if he is defiant and rebellious, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has great mental health, he is “at-promise”; if he has a mental disorder, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has an IQ of 140, he is “at-promise”; if he has an IQ of 60, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has vigorous ambition, he is “at-promise”; if he plans to do nothing in life at all, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student practices total academic honesty, he is “at-promise”; if he cheats on every single exam, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student is tolerant and pro-diversity, he is “at-promise”; if he a Neo-Nazi or member of the KKK, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student is fed 3 good meals a day, he is “at-promise”; if he is constantly starved of food and hungry, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student treats others well, he is “at-promise”; if he is a bully at school, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][li]If a student has great parents, he is “at-promise”; if his parents are terrible and dysfunctional, he is also “at-promise.”[/li][/ul]
Then just where is the distinction? One might as well claim that everyone is headed on the same trajectory in life, with or without intervention.
The idea is to suggest that some students are in need of intervention, but without saying that they are in need of intervention, because the suggestion that they need intervention dooms them to failure. The belief appears to be that the euphemism “at-promise” will suggest they need intervention in a non-negative way.
It’s a stupid belief, of course. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together (which may or may not apply to the CA education and penal system administrators) will figure out that “at-risk” means the same thing as “at-promise” but it’s easier than addressing any of the problems.
Not at all, but so far all evidence is that this is two administrators talking to each other and one of them and takes offense and sees that the “at-risk” kids are doing worse than the other kids (whatever they label them) and confuses causation with correlation and thus decides to change the term since those kids indeed perform worse than the other kids.
All argumentation so far is flawed reasoning based upon some faulty assumption that the kids hear these labels tossed at them.
That has yet to be shown, and what’s worse, it flies in the face of all logic and reason that they WOULD be labeled as such to their face.
Nor is there any reason to believe that a different label that says the same thing is going to have a different effect.
“At risk” and “at promise” both identify students in need of intervention. If identifying students as needing intervention causes them to fail - IOW if the rooster really does make the sun come up - then it won’t make any difference if they are identified with “at risk” or “at promise”.
I’m genuinely unclear what you’re referring to when you say “all evidence.” Certainly that’s not at all what the article I linked to was about. Can you be more specific what’s giving you that impression?
Whoa there. There is no such evidence. You have been shown evidence to the contrary, but it doesn’t count because… you don’t like it? I dunno.
This is not what being open minded means. Open minded specifically does not mean pretending with no cites that there is evidence that kids never learn of being called “at-risk,” and dismissing the cite to the professor who advocated getting rid of all such labels.
What educators are using the term “at-risk” directly to a child? If a child isn’t hearing it, how can they take offense or otherwise be negatively affected?
As others have said, it’s a treatment issue. If something like “at-risk” is only used between educators (at most, including the parents), that’s awesome. That’s how it should be. Educators should treat the kids themselves the same, when all possible (if a special class is required or something, obviously that’s different). If you’re treating the kids the same, no one feels bad because they are considered at-risk. Because they don’t realize they are being labeled at-risk.
Switching an existing and well-understood label to another (far more confusing) label doesn’t a single damn thing. It’s yet another feel-good measure that’s so popular in California, and doesn’t actually fix anything. If educators are treating kids differently, FIX IT. Once again, that doesn’t require a label change.
You said it so much better than I did. If there is a treatment issue going on, which there very well could be, that should be the focus. Not whining about the use of a convenient label and thinking a far more condescending term will magically fix everything.
No no - if he/she gets all A’s, they are promising. If they get straight F’s, they are at-promise. This could in no possible way cause confusion or be considered condescending to anyone.
I’ll agree with the last sentence, but it’s because what you’re saying bears very little relationship to the articles that have been linked, how the term is used, the problems with the term, and what teachers in this thread have talked about. Given these disconnects, I’m not especially inclined to refute what you’ve written point-by-point. Rather, I’ll ask you to actually read the links and engage with them fairly.
I’ll agree with the last sentence, but it’s because what you’re saying bears very little relationship to the articles that have been linked, how the term is used, the problems with the term, and what teachers in this thread have talked about. Given these disconnects, I’m not especially inclined to refute what you’ve written point-by-point. Rather, I’ll ask you to actually read the links and engage with them fairly.
Oh my God. It’s not ‘gangbanger’. That’s demeaning and I’m sure racist. Instead, we like to say, ‘Organized youth entrepreneur’.
And ‘drug habit’? That also sounds demeaning. The correct term is ‘Alternate chemistry student.’
And if you say it takes hard work, well, that’s a discouragement. We prefer ‘challenging opportunity’.
So for those organized youth entrepreneurs with a taste for alternative chemistry, we just need to offer them challenging opportunities, or perhaps a universal income in case they aren’t up to the challenge or have chosen alternate challenges, such as more chemistry… Then everything will be fine.
Sam, that’s a marvelous demonstration of the sort of sneering, half-informed hostility that kids in poverty can expect from libertarian conservatives. I appreciate your illustration of what educators are up against!
Also, lack of concern with actual details–like the fact that “at risk” does not mean and has never been restricted to only students who are engaged in criminal or even unpleasant behavior. It’s just not what the term means or implies, to anyone in the field.
I mean, this is some basic humor stuff: being funny and being obnoxious aren’t antonyms. A statement can be both. Being funny and being morally indecent aren’t mutually exclusive. A statement can be both.
What you said wasn’t funny, don’t get me wrong. You’re not ready for the Apollo. But even if it were hifuckinlarious, that wouldn’t obviate its value as an example of, as I said, the “sneering, half-informed hostility that kids in poverty can expect from libertarian conservatives.”
If you’re trying to make jokes that people will appreciate, two pro tips:
Don’t come into a discussion about children living in traumatic situations just to sneer at them.
I’m not sneering at the children. I’m mocking the people who think twisting the language away from the clear meaning and towards Orwellian bullshit like declaring ‘risk’ to be ‘promise’. It’s confusing, and it deflects from the fact that the schools are doing a shitty job teaching these kids.
When I was in school, if you were screwing around or otherwise not making the grade, you wouldn’t just be told you were ‘at risk’, you were told that you were flunking out and if you didn’t want to wash dishes for a living you had better shape up, and pronto. Then the kid’s parents were told the same thing.
Besides, being ‘at risk’ isn’t an insult. It isn’t shaming. A student can be ‘at risk’ for lots of reasons, many of which are not the kid’s fault, The designation is there to help us identify such kids so we can work a little harder with them. Calling them ‘at-promise’ is Orwellian double-speak, and confusing when clarity is much needed,
It probably doesn’t matter, since the schools are graduating kids who can’t read anyway.