The family community is the biggest influence and I’d say probably a larger factor than any other for the average child. I live in a rural Maine town. Something like 75 percent of the high school body is failing at least one course. The dropout rate has increased dramatically since last year. Think of that.

The most common reason these kids cite for faring so poorly is “because Dad and Mom work at the mill so why do I need to go to college?”

Consider this: home support can surmount poverty. I have a strong suspicion that the reason that many Asian and Jewish families tend to score well on standardized tests is because of a more academically ambitious family culture. Eastern European Jewish immigrants cracked the SAT and entered the Ivy League colleges in large measure thanks to their supportive mothers.

Talk about a positive organization! I see families as either more of a drag or more of a support academically. When I was going through the school system, my mother told me to just pass the classes. The expectation wasn’t for straight A’s and B’s.

I think teachers need to become USED CAR SALESMEN. Persuading kids to put some effort into their homework is one of the hardest and most rewarding elements to teaching. Its also the foundation of their achievement.

We are (US and UK) at the bottom of the UNICEF childhood Well-being list. I don’t know what the answers to this are. I doubt redoubling responsibilities laid on education is the way forward.

Best aye

Angus

I completely agree that mainstream education is not for all.

The law in the US has evolved to its current focus on full inclusion because high-profile court cases led to new precedents allowing students to be educated with their age peers to the fullest extent possible.

There have been both positive and negative outcomes from this approach, of course. For more anyone interested in the legal side of US SpEd law, see http://www.wrightslaw.com/ which is a fabulous compendium.

There are many ways to create positive and efficacious educational and environmental opportunties for students (and teachers!). One size most certainly does not fit all, even if a legal mandate says so.

A school devoted to working with a particular population can provide all sorts of things that a mainstream school cannot, not the least of which is a heightened focus on exceptional teaching skills and deep compassion vs. standards-based production and content-focused classes.

Schools, as well as individuals, have a unique strengths set. In our research at UPenn, Dave Shearon and I found this to be the case even when comparing what might otherwise be “apples to apples”–a national teacher data set of strengths, work orientation, happiness, and optimism to that of teachers in a large metro school district. There are statisically significant differences.

Cheers!

I think Seligman put it best: “Know what you can change and what you can’t”(Or at least you can’t change right now).

A few thoughts of my own…
1) I have articles that specifically talk about NOT gutting arts programs. See http://pos-psych.com/news/sherri-fisher/20070505230 and http://pos-psych.com/news/sherri-fisher/20070405192

2) I am anti-NCLB. It has taken an already dry period in American education and turned it into a desert.

3) SpEd law is very complex. This article is not about overhauling it since whatever would replace the existing law would have its own gate-keeper issues. I am trying to bring a more positive and less combative approach to the meetings I do attend. AI is a natural fit, no matter the SpEd situation. The question of who pays, and how much, is part of the design phase. Hope Theory fits into the dream phase. Even in cases of profound special needs, it is good to have hope!

4) The world of special education is full of opportunity. I am a teacher and a coach, and I live for the teachable–and reachable–moment. If I spent too much time caring about all of the reasons why I might not be successful, I would be a pretty poor example of Positive Psychology. If you think that something cannot be improved, it can’t (at least not by you).

5) We have to start somewhere. Here I am!

Thanks for all of the insight and support:-)

Bridget

…but why are some schools bureaucratic? I think that many of the rules were created by lobbyists whose contributors wanted to change school culture. Students with special needs were not receiving equitable services compared to typically developing peers. Politicians leveraged a grassroots movement and created laws to protect these kids (and to achieve personal and party objectives).

As you know, policy is not reality. Now we have a mountain of paperwork that follows each child with special needs. In order to receive state funding for an assistive communication device, the special ed teacher must go through page after page of documentation, receive approval from the director of SPECED, chronicle the use and outcomes of the device, and keep a thick file on the technology year after year.

If you were a special educator and had the job of teaching children literacy, numeracy, social skills, personal hygience, etc., would you keep these rules in place? Probably not. Yet in order to receive funding and keep your job, you dance to the bureaucratic policies.

Even though…
…the time spend on paperwork is a full-time position
…educational technicians (ed techs) often end up teaching students in class which is not best practice
…something like half of all new hires leave after the 1st year because the burnout rate is enormous in special education
…there is a huge sentiment in the public that “teachers are not doing their jobs” and “teaching is easy & they get their summers off”

Positive psychology is about individual traits and organizational strengths. I see a lot of good teachers doing their best and achieving quality student outcomes in bad schools. I believe in public schools. Every child shoud receive a Free Appropriate Public Education. The political statement “every child can read” is bullshit. That may not form part of the child’s “strengths canvas”. Some child, despite the best practices and efforts of caring teachers, won’t read.

Schools have a literacy and numeracy fetish. I know Sherri disagrees with me on this point, but I believe that full funding would help bring more students’ strengths to play in public schools. What programs are cut from budgets first? Arts, music, physical education, drama, even sports (usually less popular ones, certainly not football!) These avenues for character development are pared away before children can explore their own gifts. For kids who can’t read and count, what is left? Would you stay in such a school or dropout?

Sherri has made the point that productivity is more than just making widgets. Modern society has given rise to a wealthy and influential creative class. The arts allow students to express multiple intelligences across a spectrum of practical subjects. The arts also support traditional learning by expressing student strengths and building self-efficacy. With full funding even traditional-minded schools could support these “fringe” programs. I think money would naturally help students develop unique strengths.