School bans teachers from using the word 'please'

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/family/school-bans-teachers-from-using-the-word-please/ar-CCpqz8?li=BBnbfcL

Since when is this word banned? People use it all the time at the bank, dealing with online customer service, etc....It's called using manners! What's next!?? "Thank You"!???

It seems lame to ban the word. A teacher can say "please" in a way that doesn't give the impression that they are asking for a favor.

Please, said in a businesslike manner, can communicate "do this now", but politely.

And this has what to do with recovering from mormonism?

OT in the subject line of the original post, indicates that this is going to be an off-topic post. If you do not wish to read non-Mormon related posts, or wish to avoid posts only peripherally related that are designated as off-topic, don't read or reply to them. Skip those OT posts, and read or reply only to posts not marked OT in the subject line.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 09:06AM by bookratt.

This is an intentionally sensationalized headline to a story that over-simplifies a classroom management technique. Like every style, this one may have pros and cons, but it's not just about banning a word.

Ya really think so?

(+5, and I better put in a sarcasm tag for Richard Packham and some others)

Now please :-) don't shoot the messenger just because I'm translating it properly. Note also, this is in a private school; the ACLU would never permit it in public education. Too, the "straw man elements" amount to a serious fire hazard.

(I'll admit to a just a bit of sympathy for the "why's" on this practice, although it's grounded in the reconition--which has me laughing--that there's deep-doggie-do denial involved, and some folks are using a psychological term they effectively don't understand)

Simply put, it's about respect baby, and these folks are miffed they ain't getting any...

/rodney dangerfield voice off

Teachers and their administrators--in this schoool, anyway--are suggesting the reason they can't teach little Johnny and Julie is because the kids are mouthy little brats, etc. and if they're held to "higher standards" of behavior, then educational achievement will rise. My advice to the teachers: do your own homework, seriously; good teaching is a product of serious prep work, and overall postive regard for the students.

(BTW, ignore the two Ritalin cases in your classroom that you're mandated to teach as well; the Utah Legislature needs to spend money on real estate developments and such. The land for the new prison to accomodate them has already been set aside)

Beware the salesmen, folks. My first long-term teaching position was in a junior high run by similar Gestapo groupies; they didn't like kids, had traumatic childhoods, and they're essentially "getting even" with the system that raised them. I had third year language students who couldn't generate an original sentence in a foreign language (and the teacher I replaced later became a school counselor). And talk about management problems compared to when I was a student teacher...

As for the "research cited" on narcissism, the word I suggested they didn't understand, that claim was crap, period.

>The origins of narcissism, however, are not well understood.

Nonsense.

(I originally wrote "bull**t--minus the asterisks--but I elected to maintain a least a semblance of propriety after giving it some thought)

The research on that subject "dovetailed" a quarter-century ago when I was still in the classroom and doing grad work in addictions therapy. John Bradshaw--who's a "recovering individual" himself--provided a lot of synthesis and seminal thinking on this subject, and he was originally well-received until the "folks in the system" discovered that "doing their own work" was damn hard, period, and even painful (RFM-ers face the same task when shedding the "delusional shackles" of LDS, Inc.).

Toxic shame is the core issue, period, and it effectively "hides" its existence from our conscious awareness. Unfortunately, the other citation is for "Psychology Today," and that one is only a little more credible than the National Enquirer.

The dynamic of "shame v. control," BTW, is why this piece "pushes some buttons," (don't look at that fleeting uncomfortable nervousness, there, folks; it'll disappear if you ignore it, honest).

/walt kelly "Pogo" voice on

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now please :-) don't shoot the messenger just
> because I'm translating it properly. Note also,
> this is in a private school; the ACLU would never
> permit it in public education. Too, the "straw man
> elements" amount to a serious fire hazard.
>
> (I'll admit to a just a bit of sympathy for the
> "why's" on this practice, although it's grounded
> in the reconition--which has me laughing--that
> there's deep-doggie-do denial involved, and some
> folks are using a psychological term they
> effectively don't understand)
>
> Simply put, it's about respect baby, and these
> folks are miffed they ain't getting any...
>
> /rodney dangerfield voice off

This is a small and perhaps insignificant distinction, but Druid Hills Academy has the markings of a charter school as opposed to a private school. I'm unsure of the ramifications of such as it pertains to the ACLU, though

http://www.decaturish.com/2015/02/druid-hills-charter-cluster-officially-disbands/

http://dekalbschoolwatch.com/2014/10/15/druid-hills-withdraws-charter-cluster-proposal-and-tells-it-like-it-is/

Google is your friend; it keeps you from looking foolish.

How often does your boss say, "please" when assigning you a task? Perhaps sometimes, but not all the time. It's the same for teachers. I always tell students, "Make no mistake about it, this is work, not play. I will try to make it as pleasant as possible, but this is still your job. Mom and dad go off to a job, and so do you."

All teachers use positive reinforcement (which the article mentions,) some more than others. As for the "consequences," I note with humor that they are not detailed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2016 05:36AM by summer.

That is, by treating every student the same in a directive way, it doesn't privilege the upper middle-class white students (one review of it mentioned its successful use among "urban" kids).

For decades there has been educational literature about the mismatch between the "white" way teachers standardly talked and the language inner-city kids typically heard at home, as for example the teachers' use of indirect requests vs blunt commands. "Do you want to put away those scissors, Tyrone?" is a an authority's request, voiced in non-authoritarian language, and not an inquiry about the kid's desires. This approach seems like an attempt to eliminate any higher class register ambiguity for lower class students.

NPR did a segment on this "No-Nonsense Nurturing" (http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/01/10/459372410/a-no-nonsense-classroom-where-teachers-dont-say-please) and an opposing teacher blasted the approach as turning students and teachers into robots (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/07/25/teacher-blasts-popular-classroom-training-program-it-is-turning-us-into-robots/).

The bit that I heard reminded me of the rigidly automated menu directions when you call the phone company, or the completely scripted interactions with some service representatives. Maybe that's what this approach is adapting children for...

monkey see, monkey do: kids learn by example. if they think their teachers are all **(insert expletive of choice)**'s they won't respond well and they will eventually (when older themselves) copy the behaviour they have been shown.

Those kids will grow up not learning the benefit that good manners bring to those who use them well. Good manners have gotten many a kid out of the inner city slums (for want of a better word) and into good jobs & areas in which to bring up their own kids.

One reason (white) private or suburbian school kids do well is the use of surnames. It reminds them that they are part of a family and their actions are a reflection on the family unit: they belong to something other than their school class. However, if each member of the family unit does not all share the same surname, the effect is lost. The surname use also reminds them that they are subordinate to the Sir/Ma'am/Miss who is teaching them and they can 'earn' being called by their given name through respectful behaviour.

Using manners correctly teaches a child to respect others and to earn respect from others in society through using respectful behaviour, which includes being assertive without being aggressive or using sarcasm. Too many inner city kids here in the UK, and most likely everywhere, seem to think that respect is earned through fear of violence and rarely given unless menace is involved.

Teachers show respect for their students. Children shouldn't be treated any more rudely than anyone else.

Well ya know Cabbie, I just learned that the word for 'teacher' in Navajo translates as 'wisdom keeper'.

NPR is also my friend, my friend.

That is a good thing.

Personally--and I gave Chris Matthews an earful twice in the last few months on this subject and heard back from him on one, but that was only a thank you for my "Planet Utah" report--I'm having the same trouble with MSNBC--MSN is a tabloid, period <insert h.l. mencken "Nobody ever went broke" quote>--that the Birch society had with the state department in the 50's and 60's, only this time it's with "cons" and not "commies."

Some of those clowns are channeling Andrew Breitbart's ghost, or maybe it was only Robert Novak, but you get my drift. I'd go looking for a Paranoids Anonymous meeting, but nobody will tell me where they're held.

Yep, I was right to be suspicious (history, not politics, ADMIN):

http://www.thewrap.com/nbc-news-msnbc-digital-shakeup-richard-wolffe-julian-march-out/

'Nuff said; I'd risk deletion if I said any more. Okay, one more for the "talking point crowd":

"Andrew Lack lacks"