Cruel or clever?

[Lei Liko]

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25123570/)

Calif. school defends DWI shock tactics
Students were told classmates had died in car wrecks — they hadn't

OCEANSIDE, Calif. - On a Monday morning last month, highway patrol officers visited 20 classrooms at El Camino High School to announce some horrible news: Several students had been killed in car wrecks over the weekend.

Classmates wept. Some became hysterical.

A few hours and many tears later, though, the pain turned to fury when the teenagers learned that it was all a hoax — a scared-straight exercise designed by school officials to dramatize the consequences of drinking and driving.

Based on the car fatalities we've had here involving young teenagers, I can't help but think that the school officials and police officers were right in using this scare tactic. I know too many kids who have no regard whatsoever for their life or the lives of others that they need to be scared like this.

Thoughts?

[Mike_Lowery]

I say clever. I work with kids in drug prevention, and 90% of them think it's a joke that schools and other agencies are concerned about underaged drinking. The 10% who take it seriously do so because they learned the hard way. I hope these kids will take this "fake" experience and learn it the hard way.

[timkona]

And some say spanking is cruel?

[Jim75]

Based only on what was posted in the first message, I have to say it seems outrageous to me. I would want to know how they arrived at the decision that this would be a good idea, other than that they simply thought it would be a good idea. Is there research that supported this practice? Did they consult with a significant number of mental health professionals who specialize in trauma and grief? Did they get permission from each of the student's parents before subjecting their children to this stunt?

I have extremely serious doubts that any University Level Institutional Review Board would sign off on an excercise like this as part of a research project. And, I am fairly certain that none would give the go-ahead without parental consent.

People can be psychologically harmed by something like this. Is there some evidence that this will have the desired effect? Or, is this an experiment and they plan to follow the lives of these kids for the next ten years to see if it was effective? If they don't plan to follow-up, then what are they doing? Are they randomly monkeying with the emotions of adolescents?

You can be fairly certain of one consequence. Some of these kids will experience significantly diminished levels of trust for authorities. Rightly so, I would say.

I would think the school administrators have some questions to answer.

[scrivener]

There are a lot of ways to teach young people. Perhaps the message isn't getting through the way it's been preached, but is the goal to get the message through at any price?

I frequently have to discipline students for joking around about certain topics. There are things in this life that are too serious for joking around about. I've been especially disturbed by some boys' recent use of the word "rape" to mean "beat in a sporting competition," as in "The Patriots got raped by the Giants in the SuperBowl." I will not tolerate it, because even if everybody in the room knows exactly the intended meaning, the use of this word in this way diminishes the seriousness of the word in its usual context, and I will not have that in my classroom. My students don't necessarily agree, but they respect my opinion and either refrain while in my room or, when they forget, accept the consequences without argument.

How could I expect this kind of cooperation from them once I pulled a stunt like this? If, heaven forbid, the day came when I had to make the announcement that someone HAD died, I would first have to preface my statement with, "This is not a joke," and even then I wouldn't convince everyone right away that I was being serious.

We live in a results-driven culture, we educators, but that culture was imposed upon us by politicians and bureaucrats. The truth, and we all know it, is that the expectation of results is a red herring that distracts in the classroom from what the real culture is: the development of young men and women into responsible, thinking human beings. That doesn't test very nicely, though, so we focus on crap like whether or not students can give the equation of the line passing through (1, 2) and (-1, 0) when almost every one of the taxpayers demanding "accountability" for schools cannot themselves solve the same problem.

Yet the administrators who put this plan into action put that aside for one day and put into motion this plan for character development. Did they as the teachers for their opinions, because I can't imagine a responsible teacher agreeing to look his or her students in the eyes and lie to them about their best friends being killed.

Jim75 is right: I doubt the IRB of any institution would approve of this kind of experiment, which means it probably crosses the line into cruelty.

If I were a teacher on this faculty and my school went ahead with this stupid plan, I would have been absent from school that day, but my letter of resignation would have been on the principal's desk.

[kani-lehua]

on the fence with this one?! what's up with kids nowadays?! i'm not getting it?

[scrivener]

Which part is confusing to you, Kani-Lehua? It sounds like you don't understand why the teens would be upset that their teachers first told them that their classmates had been killed in a car accident and then told them that it was a hoax.

I think we would all feel upset about being lied to about something so serious, don't you? The kind of emotions a thing like that puts you through cannot be erased with "we were only teaching you a lesson." This wasn't just an announcement like, "there was an accident and some people died." It actually named the students who supposedly died, and those students were not in school that day, as part of the "lesson."

I think it totally makes sense that they would be indignant and outraged.

[Walkoff Balk]

Did Ashton Kutcher come from behind the curtain and say, "You've been Punked?"

[kani-lehua]

Which part is confusing to you, Kani-Lehua

i do understand that the hoax would/could have negative affects on those that experienced it.

to clarify: i don't understand the reason kids do the things they do? like the drinking, drugs, graffiti, property crime, violence, etc. what's going on? i probably don't understand because i'm not a parent? all it took was one look from my mother or father to be "scared straight".

[tutusue]

My first thought was what if any of the students had already been traumatized by previous incidents in their lives; be it domestic violence, death of a family member or friend, car accident...you name it. The tactic used in the high school could push some already emotionally fragile teens over the edge. Scary.

[Frankie's Market]

People can be psychologically harmed by something like this. Is there some evidence that this will have the desired effect? Or, is this an experiment and they plan to follow the lives of these kids for the next ten years to see if it was effective? If they don't plan to follow-up, then what are they doing? Are they randomly monkeying with the emotions of adolescents?

Speaking for myself, if my children were high school-aged, I would take the "chance" of some emotional trauma (ooh, so risky :rolleyes: ) from this experiment if it would lessen the possibility of their getting involved in an actual accident, wherein the emotional trauma and physical harm would be infinitely greater and very REAL.

But that's just me. My lil' ole' opinion. (So don't everybody who disagrees with me start flaming, calling me insensitive, ignorant, etc.)

Speaking of experiments, if you think that what this California school did was too radical or psychologically "scarring," you should do some research on past experiments. There's Jane Elliott, a 3rd grade teacher who conducted a blue-eyed/brown-eyed exercise, wherein she favored her blue-eyed students and discriminated against the brown-eyed kids for a day. And the following day, the teacher reversed the treatment. This was designed to teach the children about how it feels to be both the beneficiary and victim of prejudice and discrimination. What were the long-term results? Google it, if you're really interested. The information might surprise some people here.

Another famous experiment was conducted by Ron Jones, who created an organization/movement called The Wave to teach his high school students the pitfalls and dangers of neo-facist thinking. A best-selling book has been written on this, as well as a dramatization on TV.

[scrivener]

Speaking for myself, if my children were high school-aged, I would take the "chance" of some emotional trauma (ooh, so risky :rolleyes: ) from this experiment if it would lessen the possibility of their getting involved in an actual accident, wherein the emotional trauma and physical harm would be infinitely greater and very REAL.
I respect this position, but you aren't a teacher (as far as I know). What you think is fine for your kids (or even for all kids) is not necessarily right for a school, which has to play by different rules. In your house, if you observe (as I do) the five-second rule and eat food you've dropped upon the floor, that's totally fine for you and your family. However, I'd like to think that you'd expect a restaurant to be a bit more stringent in its dropped-food policy.

Similarly, what you might consider good parenting (and I won't dispute it; I'm not a parent) can be bad educating. A school, just like that restaurant, has to stick to standards that are different from what you might consider fine for your children.

I'm familiar with both examples you cite, particularly with The Wave, which was novelized for young adults by Todd Strasser. An important thing to keep in mind about those is that they both happened a long time ago, in less litigious times. I went to school in the eighties and was paddled by my PE teacher. Even with parental permission right now, though, a school would have to be crazy to allow corporal punishment. There are all kinds of things schools used to do that, for better or worse, they can no longer do.

One last point in response: Teachers cannot get away, in students' eyes, with the stuff parents and coaches get away with. If an athlete comes to practice late and the coach makes him run laps until he's throwing up, parents and teammates applaud and the athlete considers it just. If I do the same thing (or some academic equivalent) to a student, my career is over. I'm not even talking about the law here; I'm talking about establishing a classroom environment in which students will learn. If I treat my students the way these teachers treated theirs, I don't think I can count on their trust anymore, and that trust is a critical part of what I do. My classroom is not the military, where I bark orders and students perform. My classroom is founded on the idea that I'm there to help students become the young men and women they want to become, and if I pull stuff like this, I don't think I can do my job anymore.

Edit:
Oops. I lied. I'm also going to add this (in support of my what's-okay-for-your-kids-may-not-be-okay-for-the-school point). Tutusue brings up a good point. I was thinking about my own school, and what it would mean to pull this kind of stunt on my students. I have students who lost step-siblings in the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. I have students who lost parents in horrible accidents (car, plane, and even parachute) and others who lost parents to disease. I have students who lost friends to suicide. I don't know if something like this would push any of them "over the edge," because there is no way to know that. But I don't see how I could know this about my students and STILL decide to pull a prank like this, even for the purpose of driving home an important point about drunken driving. It's just irresponsible and insensitive.

[Adri]

Wasn't there a school that staged a shooting scenario (a la Columbine and Virginia Tech) as part of it's emergency training (without telling the students that it wasn't real)?

I'm not so sure how effective this kind of "scared straight" tactic is. Back in the day, schools used to take students on field trips to see blackened lungs of deceased smokers (actual slices of lungs) and the worst case scenarios for smokers in an effort to scare them away from smoking. and during the actual field trip, a lot of us kids would swear to never smoke. Cos, ewwww! But in a few short years, a fair number of those students would be smoking.

I'm pretty sure most people don't get into their cars intending to get into a drunken accident. I'd bet a fair number of drunken driving accidents happen because the drivers don't realize they're drunk or don't think they're impaired or as impaired as they might be. So, yeah, is there anything backing up that this scared straight tactic is actually effective to prevent drunken driving?

[turtlegirl]

I think that this hoax was unfortunate, cruel, and unnecessary!

[sophielynette]

Last year in one of my art classes we were given a project to disrupt people in some way, and one group of students chose to stage the death and memorial of a classmate. Not being part of that group, I walked into school one morning to be faced with a large banner announcing a memorial service to be held that day. I wasn't close with the guy, but we'd been in class for four years, and it was definitely upsetting. Then someone informed me that it was part of a project, that it wasn't real.

Do things like that actually serve to "shock people straight"? I've known people to watch their family dying of lung cancer but still smoke a pack every day. Our childhood is scarred from our mother's alcoholism and yet my brother is a heavy drinker. And there exists, not just in teenagers, the mentality that such things only happen to other people, never to them. As Adri said, people don't plan to get into drunken accidents.

[Frankie's Market]

I respect this position, but you aren't a teacher (as far as I know).

An assumption. I am not a teacher,.... anymore. But I was a teacher at 2 high schools and 1 intermediate school in the past. Public schools in this state.

So what does that make me and my way of thinking? A dinosaur? Maybe. But a dinosaur that didn't have to worry about kids bringing guns to school. Someone who taught back in the days when it was the norm (not the exception) for boys to come to school dressed in button shirts and slacks instead of the all too typical t-shirts and shorts I see nowadays. Someone who could remember the days when all kids felt safe to go to the bathroom without being harassed.

We've certainly made a lot of progress since those bad old days, huh? :confused:

Litigation, schmitigation. If you want a better performing public school system, bring back legal immunity.

But then again, what does a dinosaur like me know?

[Jim75]

Speaking for myself, if my children were high school-aged, I would take the "chance" of some emotional trauma (ooh, so risky :rolleyes: ) from this experiment if it would lessen the possibility of their getting involved in an actual accident, wherein the emotional trauma and physical harm would be infinitely greater and very REAL.

But that's just me. My lil' ole' opinion. (So don't everybody who disagrees with me start flaming, calling me insensitive, ignorant, etc.)You're saying you would accept the risk if the outcome of the action was effective. I'd say that's pretty key. We take measured risks all the time when there is some known, tangible benefit. Vaccinations are an example. As I said before, I'd be very interested to know if these HP's and the School had some longitudinal research design in place to gather statistics across time to measure their results. But now that I think about it, the reality is they can only pull off this charade one time, because now every kid in that school will be braced for more lying in the future.

Yes, it's unlikely that these kids will suffer some serious, long-term effect like nightmares ten years down the road, for example. But like Tutusue and Scrivener noted, ones who have experienced previous trauma or loss could be affected negatively. A teen who is having thoughts of suicide and is generally confused about life could decide that that's the last straw. Kids who are trying to decide whether or not to experiment with alcohol or drugs could decide that what they've been told is probably a lie, since authorities are dishonest. In that case, the ruse could have the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Sometimes a teacher can be the person in a kids life who is a pivotal influence at some important juncture. Their relationship is built on trust. They see this person as a source of stability, wisdom, and reason when maybe their home life doesn't offer these resources. Didn't these people ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf. I agree completely with Scrivener on the honesty deal. Once you tell a person a serious enough lie, regardless of your intent, they are going to be suspect of you for a very long time, at a minimum. Trust is built over time. One breach can destroy it, sometimes forever.

An assumption. I am not a teacher,.... anymore. But I was a teacher at 2 high schools and 1 intermediate school in the past. Public schools in this state.

So what does that make me and my way of thinking? A dinosaur? Maybe. But a dinosaur that didn't have to worry about kids bringing guns to school. Someone who taught back in the days when it was the norm (not the exception) for boys to come to school dressed in button shirts and slacks instead of the all too typical t-shirts and shorts I see nowadays. Someone who could remember the days when all kids felt safe to go to the bathroom without being harassed.

We've certainly made a lot of progress since those bad old days, huh? :confused:

Litigation, schmitigation. If you want a better performing public school system, bring back legal immunity.

But then again, what does a dinosaur like me know?Remember the Rule of Thumb? Within the law, a man had the right to beat his wife and children with a stick so long as it was no bigger around than his thumb. I'll bet there was plenty of obedience during those times. You appear to romanticize the "bad old days". There's an old construct known as 'identifying with the aggressor". In this scenario, people who are treated harshly go on to treat others harshly, passing the violence on down the line. A quick Google turned up this nicely written page by Beverly Engel that explains much about how people behave in the long-term after mistreatment. http://www.newliving.com/issues/feb_2005/articles/beverly%20engel.html The people who were raised under the ways of the past are the same ones who contributed to the creation of the ways of the present. People who are kids now have had a limited contribution to the current situation. Most of the responsibility has to lie with the adults, current and past.

A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that people like parents and teachers have been stripped of their ability to manage the behavior of children by "slapping some sense into them". This is good, because it can help us get away from the interpersonal violence that is often used in attempts to socialize children. The problem seems to be that people whose "toolbox" only contains slapping are left with nothing if slapping is not allowed. We all can benefit from learning how to achieve positive results with one another and meet each other's needs without resorting to rough treatment.

Many of us never had to worry about anybody showing up in school with a gun. There are many developments that are troubling, but the world is a very different place now, in some respects. I think it must be very difficult for kids these days. It must be difficult for parents and teachers, too. Some things in the past were better and some things were worse. The inverse of that is true too.

If you could magically change everything that is now to the way it was back in 1955, would you? I wouldn't.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

One of the earliest rules learned in communication courses is that the speaker must appear trustworthy in order to get his/her point across most effectively. Very few people, teens or otherwise, give permission to have their feelings exploited, especially when it is completely unnecessary, and all for the sake of a "lesson". If it requires a great deal of explanation and justification to soothe the umbrage of those who have been manipulated for the sake of <fill in the blank> then the experiment failed.

In other words, if a teacher chooses to employ exploitation and manipulation to teach a lesson, that lesson learned here by the students is that this teacher will not rise above using manipulative tactics. They won't trust teacher, regardless of whatever great knowledge s/he is capable of imparting.

[cezanne]

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

[oceanpacific]

Sounds like this goes hand-in-hand with the "rule" that the police can lie while interrogating suspects to gain confessions.

[MyopicJoe]

Yeah, the scare tactics are only "useful" because they are novel. If they become commonplace, the kids will find ways to turn them into jokes. As others have said, the little benefit it provides comes at the expense of eroded trust.

Perhaps there should be more field trips to the morgue (with parent and student consent, and no student forced to view more than they can handle). Our society tends to hide death from kids, the only version they see is in movies and video games. I doubt morgues are designed to handle large number of students, though. I wonder how complex the biological safety issues are.

Does anyone know of a morgue designed for public viewing / school field trips? I suppose a more practical thing would be video shown in the classroom, but I don't think that would have the same effect.

I've been especially disturbed by some boys' recent use of the word "rape" to mean "beat in a sporting competition," as in "The Patriots got raped by the Giants in the SuperBowl."

Yeah, it's a big problem online too, especially with the young boy crowd. I suspect most of them live sheltered lives. Add to that their desire to appear macho. It's surprising, and sad, the number of women in online gaming communities who have been abused, molested, or raped :(

[turtlegirl]

MADD used to do assemblies at my high school every few months to show us the danger of drinking and driving. Usually they would bring some horribly mangled car that was involved in a drunk driving accident. And they would bring some scary "Red Asphalt" kind of movie.

The result? Me and most of my friends from high school are terrified of car accidents! Not necessarily scared of driving drunk, but completely, sincerely terrified of any car accident!

[Peshkwe]

Way to go to instill trust.

I hope every kid that ends up with emotional issues because of this gets free therapy compliments of the people who set that farce up.

Or the parents sue for it.

[Frankie's Market]

You're saying you would accept the risk if the outcome of the action was effective. I'd say that's pretty key. We take measured risks all the time when there is some known, tangible benefit. Vaccinations are an example. As I said before, I'd be very interested to know if these HP's and the School had some longitudinal research design in place to gather statistics across time to measure their results. But now that I think about it, the reality is they can only pull off this charade one time, because now every kid in that school will be braced for more lying in the future.

Yes, it's unlikely that these kids will suffer some serious, long-term effect like nightmares ten years down the road, for example. But like Tutusue and Scrivener noted, ones who have experienced previous trauma or loss could be affected negatively. A teen who is having thoughts of suicide and is generally confused about life could decide that that's the last straw. Kids who are trying to decide whether or not to experiment with alcohol or drugs could decide that what they've been told is probably a lie, since authorities are dishonest. In that case, the ruse could have the exact opposite of its intended effect.

Sometimes a teacher can be the person in a kids life who is a pivotal influence at some important juncture. Their relationship is built on trust. They see this person as a source of stability, wisdom, and reason when maybe their home life doesn't offer these resources. Didn't these people ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf. I agree completely with Scrivener on the honesty deal. Once you tell a person a serious enough lie, regardless of your intent, they are going to be suspect of you for a very long time, at a minimum. Trust is built over time. One breach can destroy it, sometimes forever.

Remember the Rule of Thumb? Within the law, a man had the right to beat his wife and children with a stick so long as it was no bigger around than his thumb. I'll bet there was plenty of obedience during those times. You appear to romanticize the "bad old days". There's an old construct known as 'identifying with the aggressor". In this scenario, people who are treated harshly go on to treat others harshly, passing the violence on down the line. A quick Google turned up this nicely written page by Beverly Engel that explains much about how people behave in the long-term after mistreatment. http://www.newliving.com/issues/feb_2005/articles/beverly%20engel.html The people who were raised under the ways of the past are the same ones who contributed to the creation of the ways of the present. People who are kids now have had a limited contribution to the current situation. Most of the responsibility has to lie with the adults, current and past.

A big part of the problem, as I see it, is that people like parents and teachers have been stripped of their ability to manage the behavior of children by "slapping some sense into them". This is good, because it can help us get away from the interpersonal violence that is often used in attempts to socialize children. The problem seems to be that people whose "toolbox" only contains slapping are left with nothing if slapping is not allowed. We all can benefit from learning how to achieve positive results with one another and meet each other's needs without resorting to rough treatment.

Many of us never had to worry about anybody showing up in school with a gun. There are many developments that are troubling, but the world is a very different place now, in some respects. I think it must be very difficult for kids these days. It must be difficult for parents and teachers, too. Some things in the past were better and some things were worse. The inverse of that is true too.

If you could magically change everything that is now to the way it was back in 1955, would you? I wouldn't.

Sounds all very compelling. But the ironic thing is, with Hawaii's low reading scores, I wonder what percentage of high school students will understand and be able to explain (in their own words) what you wrote.

Ladies and gentleman, once upon a time, teachers in this state could expect every student (excepting the SPED kids) entering the 5th grade to have mastered long division. Nowadays, 7th grade math teachers consider themselves lucky if even half their class start the school year knowing the multiplication table.

Amidst all the so-called "progress" that the public school system has trumpeted over the years, imparting the 3 Rs has somehow become a hit-or-miss affair.

Some progress.

[MyopicJoe]

Amidst all the so-called "progress" that the public school system has trumpeted over the years, imparting the 3 Rs has somehow become a hit-or-miss affair.

The best teacher employment web page is for Oakland Charter Academy (http://www.oaklandcharter.net/main.html?src=%2Findex2.html) (California):

We are always in search of teachers and staff who are smart, ambitious and motivated to teach inner city youth. We believe in setting a high standard for ALL students regardless of race, ethnicity, language, economic standing, etc.

Please DO NOT waste your time if you are a multi-cultural specialist, ultra-liberal zealot, college tainted "Oppression Liberator."


A lot of the students are Hispanic. I am told when the new principal arrived, he fired all the Spanish teachers and other Hispanic culture types. His justification being English is what college courses are taunt in; if parents want their kids to learn Hispanic culture, they can teach them themselves.

Of course a foreign language is still taught at the school: Chinese. No, not because "China will rule the world." He wanted all the students to struggle together, to learn a language that none of them were familiar with. Not to mention learning a language extremely different from English forces the brain to think differently.

During his first year he was hated by students and staff who campaigned to have him fired, but quickly he took a failing school and raised it to the second best in the district (second only to the school run by his mentor). He also wears long sleeve shirts to hide his gang tattoos. He was a former drug dealer.

His rule is autocratic and his students highly disciplined. In fact, a teacher who allowed his students to break a subtle dress code was ratted on by students and promptly fired. The principal has the luxury of kicking out anyone who doesn't fit his vision; a luxury our public schools don't have.

Rather off topic, but I wanted to share something I learned recently. I didn't fact check any of this. This was told to me by someone who did meet and talk with the principal. Hopefully I didn't mangle the details too much.

[Vanguard]

I think it's not only cruel, but quite stupid, as well.

Did they think the HS students would never learn the truth? Great, they just ruined their credibility, at a time when young people are formulating their opinions on key issues and institutions such as government and police force. So in this situation, it seems they learned to distrust what the police tell them. Bravo.

[SusieMisajon]

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

Or to a hospital to meet actual accident victims. While you're at it...visit the ward where lungs go to die because of cigarettes. Then continue to a detention center and a prison. An abused spouse shelter, a tour of homeless hangouts would finish the day.

Too bad orpahanges no longer really exist...maybe a teenage mother center or low income housing where single moms are found? A mind-numbing factory worker's tour? Monopoly money to equal minimum pay, with the homework to go and try and live on it? Hospital emergency room? Sweatshop?

[SusieMisajon]

The next day, take the students into an old-folk's home (too bad that the poorhouse no longer exists), an inner-city multi-racial school, and have lunch outside in a field of fruits or vegetables, where you can watch migrant workers doing their 'thing'.

Be sure to visit a sub-prime mortgae office, and a credit card issue office, and then take them to the mall and explain home equity loans and living beyond your means. Don't forget to pass by for a visit to the foodbank.

PLEASE....SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!

[Nords]

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25123570/]I know too many kids who have no regard whatsoever for their life or the lives of others that they need to be scared like this.
Thoughts?
Imagine if a workplace's benevolent bosses had pulled this type of exercise before a three-day weekend "to cut down on drunk driving by our employees"... or if the Hawaii Dept of Transportation had done it to elevate driver awareness of drunk driving.

You can be fairly certain of one consequence. Some of these kids will experience significantly diminished levels of trust for authorities. Rightly so, I would say.
It's an abuse of authority given to those who set the rules and control the information. It's just as bad as the radio station in 1938 broadcasting "War of the Worlds" so realistically that the audience mistook entertainment for breaking news.

Back in the Cold War, the U.S. Navy's ballistic-missile submarines used to make 90-day patrols under radio silence. The only contact with the rest of the world was a 2400 bps broadcast, and each crewmember was allowed to receive eight forty-word familygrams. Some radiomen used to make up familygrams and give them to various crewmembers as a joke, presenting them as if they'd come from the crew's family members. While it initally seemed funny, it wasn't very amusing when it happened to me. When you're the only source of "truth", or when you're operating a public broadcast, you don't mess with the facts.

The students will find subtle ways to let the school authorities share the same feelings that were imposed on them. And when the misbehavior starts happening, the authorities will have no one else to blame it on.

[Lei Liko]

I say cruel. If you wanna scare them straight take them to the morgue or show them actual pictures/video of a crash scene.

My senior class took a field trip to the morgue right before we held our prom. Parents could opt-out if they wanted, but my mom gave 110% support for it and even volunteered to chaperone.

It was sick and disgusting, but I got the message.

[salmoned]

Looks like a clever 'stunt' to me. It's got all of you talking about it, eh? Trying something different should be applauded, even when it's bone-headed, whenever current techniques fail. I don't subscribe to 'emotional effect' teaching at all, but suggesting this instance was cruelty is far-fetched, at best. Any heightened sense of distrust of 'what you're told' developed by this exercise validates it for that reason alone. If I believed even a quarter of what my teachers told me, I never would have learned to think for myself, to check out what's what - 'cause let me tell you, they RARELY HAD THE ACTUAL ANSWERS to any of my questions (and rarely admitted as much).

[scrivener]

If I believed even a quarter of what my teachers told me, I never would have learned to think for myself, to check out what's what - 'cause let me tell you, they RARELY HAD THE ACTUAL ANSWERS to any of my questions (and rarely admitted as much).
You already distrusted your teachers, so for you the trust thing wouldn't have been an issue. What I'm suggesting is that I work very, very, very hard to build a level of trust between me and my students, and it's a two-way thing. I believe (and I could be wrong) that most good teachers do, because establishing good relationships with students is about all we have at our disposal nowadays.

My first goal as a teacher, and it has remained my first goal through these twelve years, has been to establish a classroom setting where nobody's afraid. I don't want students walking through my door afraid they'll be embarrassed, humiliated, hurt, ostracized, or made to feel stupid. My students may not always like me, but I bust my butt every day to ensure that they can trust me at least on that level. I don't always succeed, as many of my students will gladly volunteer, but I'll bet they will all admit that I try my darndest.

When I have failed -- when I have allowed them to be embarrassed, humiliated, hurt, ostracized, or made to feel stupid -- it has always been accidental; I have never intentionally done anything to put my students through those things. If, even for the sake of an important lesson, I put them through the exercise written about in this article, I WILL have deliberately hurt them. I just can't live with that prospect.

[Frankie's Market]

When I have failed -- when I have allowed them to be embarrassed, humiliated, hurt, ostracized, or made to feel stupid -- it has always been accidental; I have never intentionally done anything to put my students through those things.

In this entire discussion, I don't think anyone advocated intentionally embarrassing or humiliating students just for the hell of it.

If, even for the sake of an important lesson, I put them through the exercise written about in this article, I WILL have deliberately hurt them. I just can't live with that prospect.

You certainly have to do what works for you as a teacher. Everybody's has a different method that works for them. But just for the sake of discussion, think about this.

You may disapprove of experiments that were conducted by the likes of Ron Jones and Stanley Milgram. You may empathize with the "subjects" who came out of such studies feeling a little embarrassed or foolish when they realized that they voluntarily let themselves be controlled by an authority figure and engaged in behavior that they knew was wrong.

But would you rather that those people learn that hard lesson out in the real world? Manipulative people come in many different forms. Cult leaders, charismatic politicians, get-rich-quick scammers, and so forth. When you finally figure out that you have been duped by any of the above, you don't just walk away with brief feelings of foolishness. In many cases, you walk away having lost money, property, friendships, family, and in some very extreme cases, even your own life.

Just a thought.

[Kalalau]

When I was 17 one of my very closest friends died--he was the first close friend to die. It destroyed me. So...how could what the highway patrol did possibly be considered anything other than outrageously cruel? Reckless and irresponsible, too. Impressionable minds, many good and decent and hard working students were grossly abused that day. Hopefully they learned to distrust and dislike authority.

[salmoned]

Scriv, I never distrusted my teachers (I distrusted what was taught), I simply tested them in the subjects they taught and found them [all] glaringly unaware of some fundamental principle or origin. It was a game I played to see how they would react to the 'embarrassing' situation. I thought it made them better teachers to realize they had something to learn from us students as well, although some responded with anger or fear. It also firmly made evident that the teacher had no crystal ball into the past or future, no special status [other than as disciplinarian]. As for 'hurting' students, real education is an extremely painful process - it results in changing entirely how a person thinks, feels, believes and behaves. It is utterly devastating to everyone who successfully undergoes the transformation. Remember when you first learned that that poo, which is a part of you, is 'icky'? Or when you realized that Man was around for over a million years before 'God' made himself 'known'?

Your technique of building trust may work for you, it may make you feel good about what you do, and it may even help some of your students, but education isn't something you pour into trusting, naive minds. I learned as much from the 'hated' teachers as from those beloved. Mostly what I learned was that they were not much different from me. Oh, I wished they were different, I wished they were wiser, more rational, had something of value to impart, but I was generally disappointed.

Kalalau, it's good to see you alive and well after having been 'destroyed'. ;) It's possible none of those students were 'good and decent and hard working', isn't it? Why speculate virtue to one side and not the other?

[Kalalau]

Thank you for those kind words. I could not have said it better. It just comes down to giving people some basic consideration as human beings, even if they do happen to be students, teenagers, whatever. Being a student is an honorable thing, it deserves respect, admiration, and appreciation, and anybody deserves more consideration than to be manipulated and misled with an issue as horrendous as death. "This is the lab calling, that test for _______ came back positive"...its the same idea, it can't be justified.

[scrivener]

As for 'hurting' students, real education is an extremely painful process - it results in changing entirely how a person thinks, feels, believes and behaves.
Of course it is. So if the actual learning process is painful enough, why would I want INTENTIONALLY to hurt a student, just to teach a lesson? I could stand in front of a student and whip all kinds of racial slurs at him or her just to teach him or her how hurtful such language can be, but there have to be better ways to teach that lesson, because once I pull this stunt, that student (and probably every other student in the room) won't trust me anymore not to be hurtful. It doesn't MATTER whether or not I MEANT the hateful words; the damage is done and it cannot be undone.

Your technique of building trust may work for you, it may make you feel good about what you do, and it may even help some of your students, but education isn't something you pour into trusting, naive minds.
I know you don't mean to condescend, because it's clear from our interactions on HT in the past that you aren't that sort, but this sounds condescending. I would like to think that what I've written here on HT would clearly indicate that I don't believe for a second in pouring anything into trusting, naive minds. I challenge my students to question EVERYTHING I tell them; I'm known, in fact, for tolerating argumentative students more than I probably should, sometimes at the cost of covering the day's planned material. Don't you see that in order for this to work, I have to create a trusting, open classroom environment? My students, if they are going to feel free to test out what they think they're being told, have to believe that they aren't going to be slammed, ridiculed, or mocked for it. If nearly everyone in my classroom is against the Iraq war, the one student who's for it has to feel free to express his or her support even knowing that the instructor is also very much against it.

You don't just find classroom environments like that in Cracker Jack boxes. You have to build that kind of trust.

Look. We're not talking about a little prank, such as I pulled on the entire senior class when they thought yearbooks wouldn't be available until July. We're talking about looking students in the eyes and saying, "Your beloved classmate is dead."

Do you not see that this is over the line?

[salmoned]

No. I know there's a line, but it wasn't reached (in my opinion) in this case. Classrooms are testing grounds. Maybe you're satisfied with the current state of education, I'm not. You feel that developing trust is a necessary component, other may feel the opposite is true. I firmly believe there's no one right way to teach and, as well, trust is a two-edged sword. You teach a student to trust a teacher, and the next teacher they have may take advantage of that trust. Trust is a by-product of consistent behavior, not an objective in the classroom. The objective is rational thought, discernment and control of emotional response. The objective is to show how and why some rather dull, dry subjects are actually interesting and important, not emotionally but intellectually. The objective is to modify behavior when it's unacceptable to society.

What I don't understand is why you seem to believe you can provide a valid assessment of this technique for all students everywhere or, at a minimum, in this case, for those students and in that classroom.

As for condescension, you use the word as if it has negative connotations (which it doesn't in this case), to condescend is to yield one's position and assume equality - which is what we all do in this forum.

[scrivener]

What I don't understand is why you seem to believe you can provide a valid assessment of this technique for all students everywhere or, at a minimum, in this case, for those students and in that classroom.
Aren't we talking about an entire student body? And didn't some of the teachers give up and tell the students the truth upon seeing their reactions? I won't presume to know anything about those students and that school, but the teachers' responses to the students' reactions say a lot about whether or not this was a well-advised activity. What I'm talking about is a level of professionalism above which teachers need to stay, and this lesson sinks below that line. The plan was to reveal the charade at a school-wide assembly later in the day, which means that teachers were expected to watch their students fall apart emotionally over an untruth and to let it keep going. The whole thing is so crazy-sounding to me that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was really an experiment on the TEACHERS to see how complicit THEY would be.

As for condescension, you use the word as if it has negative connotations (which it doesn't in this case), to condescend is to yield one's position and assume equality - which is what we all do in this forum.
That's one definition. The other, which is the one I meant, is to assume an air of superiority.

[salmoned]

Hey, I did call the exercise 'bone-headed'. I'm not applauding the act, in and of itself, just the willingness to try something new. Well-advised or not, every administrator and teacher involved must have agreed to participate and the results are not yet evident.

Yes, the word has a minor definition which is the complete opposite of it's primary meaning, but for that opposing meaning reasonable persons use 'pontificate' or 'lecture' or to remain 'aloof' or some term without the inherent oxymoron. When someone condescends they yield their position of authority and act or speak as an equal, which is the opposite of your intended meaning. That minor definition has crept into the language via misunderstanding alone.

[Leo Lakio]

From Encarta ---
con·de·scen·sion [ kòndə sénshən ]
noun
Definition:
snobby and pretentiously kind manner: behavior that implies that somebody is graciously lowering himself or herself to the level of people less important or intelligent

From Merriam-Webster ---
condescension
Main Entry: con·de·scen·sion
Pronunciation: \ˌkän-di-ˈsen(t)-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin condescension-, condescensio, from condescendere
Date: 1647
1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior
2 : patronizing attitude or behavior

From The Free Dictionary ---
con·de·scen·sion (knd-snshn)
n.
1. The act of condescending or an instance of it.
2. Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

From American Heritage Dictionary ---
con·de·scen·sion (kŏn'dĭ-sěn'shən)
n.
The act of condescending or an instance of it.
Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

From Princeton's WordNet ---
condescension
noun
1. the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior
2. a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient
3. affability to your inferiors and temporary disregard for differences of position or rank; "the queen's condescension was intended to make us feel comfortable"

From Dictionary.com ---
con·de·scen·sion /ˌkɒndəˈsɛnʃən/ [kon-duh-sen-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of condescending.
2. behavior that is patronizing or condescending.
3. voluntary assumption of equality with a person regarded as inferior.

[salmoned]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the etymology of the word is as follows:

condescend 1340, from Old French condescendere, "to let oneself down," from Latin com- "together" + descendere "descend." Originally "to yield deferentially;" sense of "to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiors" is from 1611.

What debate? I'm not willing to agree that 'bad' means good, either. ;)

[Leo Lakio]

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the etymology of the word is as follows:
condescend 1340, from Old French condescendere, "to let oneself down," from Latin com- "together" + descendere "descend." Originally "to yield deferentially;" sense of "to sink willingly to equal terms with inferiors" is from 1611.Silly ol' Scrivener. He must have assumed you would have accepted the common, contemporary definition, rather than a 400- to 700-year-old one. :p (Sort of like the debate over whether Shakespeare was referring to a brothel with the line "Get thee to a nunnery" in Hamlet.)

[salmoned]

Naw, I cherish the language and it's intended, inherent wisdom and do not countenance most bastardizing influences upon it (though I have been known to use double entendres, now and again). The egalitarian definition IS current and primary by derivation, even though that fact may not be universally recognized. [I especially hate it when the media butcher the language; last night, a reporter called paintings by a blind man 'masterpieces' (not every painting is a masterpiece).] ;)

[Leo Lakio]

(though I have been known to use double entendres, now and again)....and just what do you mean by "use?" ;)