Epilogue: All Children Left Behind - or is there Another Way?

Epilogue: All Children Left Behind – or is there Another Way?

What should be done with the children who are currently sent to alternative schools, the children who are left behind? Given the intensity and multiplicity of challenges these children present, along with the host of deep rooted problems from which they suffer, it is clear that very few will somehow just outgrow or “get over” their problems. It is equally clear that we cannot continue the practice of depriving children of their right to an education under the veil of reassigning them to privately run alternative schools. Separate but equal was a lie for black children sentenced to “negro” schools and it is a lie for misbehaving children sent to “alternative” schools.

But what is the solution?

Here’s the system I would create. First and foremost, highly disruptive children would remain under the direct care of the public schools, on their home campus, with formalized support systems to help them change their behavior and develop their deficient skills. While most of these children would need to be temporarily removed from their regular classrooms, the goal would be to begin the process of reintegrating them as quickly as possible.

The costs associated with keeping children in public school but in specialized programs would be paid, in large part, with the money currently given to the private companies running alternative schools.

The current set-up in which a public school employee (such as Henry) oversees and approves the identification of children in need of alternative education, generally works. While this “Director of Alternative Education” would no longer manage contracts, he or she would be able to ensure consistency across the school district regarding which behaviors merit temporary removal from assigned classes, to share best practices and to reallocate resources as needed.

Once a child has been identified as requiring Temporary Removal from Assigned Classes (I’ll call it TRAC, since every good policy needs an acronym or two!) the treatment would begin with a written contract developed at a conference attended by all key stakeholders who will play a role on the child’s treatment team. These vital players include the child, his or her parents or guardian, the school principal, the child’s teachers, the school counselor, the school resource officer, the child’s bus driver, the TRAC teachers, the TRAC counselor, a DCF caseworker, the child’s minister and representatives from relevant social agencies – drug rehab, sexual abstinence, anger control. Also present should be any representatives from the child’s outside activities both current and potential, such a football coach, gymnastics instructor, piano teacher etcetera. If the child has a probation officer, she or he should attend. The director of alternative education should be the organizer for this meeting.
The TRAC plan has special staffing needs and for maximum effectiveness, requires an extended day program. The TRAC plan has four phases. The meeting with the all the key players and identification of their roles, begins the plan. The second phase is the shortest but also the most controversial as it combines a punitive element with a risk identifier. The third phase focuses on accentuating the child’s strengths and interests. The final phase reintegrates the child into the mainstream school program.

The TRAC model for treating and educating troubled children would, of course, be more difficult and expensive than the current practice of transferring children to an alternative “school.” It would require bringing more people to the table and taking more time to focus on the troubled child. Given the level of animosity these children provoke in adults, especially teachers, and knowing that the children will relapse before they succeed, such an approach is likely to be a pretty hard sell. But while few would advocate throwing these children in a dumpster, that is effectively what happens with the current scheme. The public school spends millions, but few of the children get educated. In addition to being morally wrong, this approach doesn’t make financial sense. Uneducated, emotionally troubled children grow up to be uneducated troubled adults who will likely need public assistance and will probably get in trouble with the law and eventually mistreat their own children starting the circle all over again. The bill for the money, time and energy we don’t spend on these children today will come due in a few years.

This model will likely invoke the wrath of those who rail at the unfairness of the “bad” children getting more resources than the “good” kids. This plan will provide more attention, counseling, tutoring, extra-curricular activities and other “benefits” all of which cost more money. In the fiscal conservatism of the south, there is a reluctance to spend more on education, moreover this model will be viewed as robbing the good to “throw money” at the bad and let’s face it, the parents of these children don’t vote for the school board and these children are not seen as savable. To succeed, this model will require a “tough on crime” champion to sell the financial advantages of effectively educating disrupted youths.

This model will also meet opposition by from private companies such as Ebencorp as well as from public school administrators. NIH anticipated this problem in its findings: “The barriers to implementing clearly effective programs inevitably include the resistance of the individuals operating ineffective programs to have their institutions closed and their jobs abolished. Furthermore, despite evidence for intensive multisystem therapy, communities are probably apprehensive at having delinquent youngsters treated in their midst as opposed to segregating them in detention centers that have the appearance of being safer and keep the children invisible.”

Educator John Dewey once wrote: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children.”

When parents can’t or won’t provide an environment that permits their children to succeed in school, the community (the village) must rally and provide what is necessary to give every child a chance at an education, a chance for a future.