What if one of the most intractable problems facing the Readington school district today was being compounded by a failure to communicate-- a misunderstanding based on different interpretations of the same thing? 

In the 1967 movie Cool Hand Luke, a famous speech by the prison guard "captain"  is a reaction to the title character's dry retort when it is explained to him how the clinking sound of chains will haunt his existence.  The captain addresses the prisoners, saying "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it anymore than you men."

The Readington Middle School has long been the subject of debate among parents, many of whom feel that there is an ingrained culture of  humiliation, sarcasm, arbitrary punishment, overbearing control, and similar tactics as a means of "classroom management."  Yet, even as some parents continue to complain about such bullying behavior by educators,  there are some teachers and administrators in the Readington district who maintain that it is the students--and, by extension, their parents--who are making these tactics necessary.  As the fallout from pennygate and from the occasional complaints at school board meetings show, we really do seem to have a failure to communicate.

So, where is the misunderstanding?

Let's do a thought experiment.  Imagine you are at a social gathering of like-minded people, and one fellow speaking in a group discussion in which you are participating is having a forgetful moment.  "What is that word I'm thinking of..." he asks the group, "it means, like, to be polite to people, or to be courteous.  It means complying with the rules and showing cooperation.... Oh, what is that word?!"

Maybe there is too much libation at this social gathering, because a few minutes later when you are visiting with another group of people, a woman stops mid-story and has the same problem.  "Oh, I can't think of the word I want," she says, "it means holding high regard for somebody, like when you admire them or when you have a special appreciation for them because of what you know about their experience." 

By now you may have guessed that the word each of these forgetful speakers was searching for is: respect.  Yet, each of these speakers was using the word in a very different manner.  As rich and subtle as the English language can be, there are also cases when true understanding can be compromised by inexact definitions.  During the aftermath of the pennygate incident, the word respect came up often, and there were both parents and educators using the word in ways not necessarily helpful to understanding of the circumstances.  Similarly, the word respect comes up often during the short parent-teacher conferences given at the middle school, also with inexact meaning.

Here's the crux of the issue with this miscommunication.  If respect means being polite, complying with rules, being obedient, conforming to norms of behavior, exhibiting proper manners, and showing courtesy to others, then the burden of living up to this meaning falls on students and on parents, with reinforcement from educators.  On the other hand, if respect means holding people in high regard for their actions, showing special consideration or trust for people based on past knowledge of their work, appreciating expertise based on performance, or recognizing a kind of credibility gained from experience, then the burden of living up to this meaning falls on the educators, with reinforcement from parents.  In other words, the former meaning demands that politeness and courtesy be taught at home, with teachers merely setting similar expectations at school.  The latter meaning demands that trust and credibility be earned by educators in school based on their performance and their engagement with students.

No wonder, then, that during pennygate there was so much animosity shown between two sides.  Some parents and seemingly most of the educators felt that students had been disrespectful and should be punished for the lack of obedience and cooperation.   Yet, most parents and perhaps a few educators felt that students were merely expressing a need for change in strong but benign terms and that educators should be earning respect rather than demanding it.  It may well be that the difference between a prank and a protest is really just a reflection of the different understandings of the word respect.

If we clarify the meaning, we can get to a more productive place and also see the problems we face at the middle school in sharper focus.  It is safe to say that there is a nearly universal desire by both parents and educators for students to be polite, to cooperate with teachers, to comply with reasonable rules, and to show some developing sense of manners.  Let's call this courtesy.  Teachers complain privately that students today too often show a lack of courtesy, and they are correct.  Parents are failing in this regard, and a glance at popular TV reality shows like Nanny 911 or Super Nanny will illustrate the areas in which modern American parents are lacking.  Teachers should expect a minimum level of courtesy from middle school students and they should get support from home.  However, teachers must also communicate this problem to parents where it exists and enlist parents as partners rather than reacting with sarcasm, humiliation and overbearing control in their classrooms.  If parents don't know their child is behaving with a lack of courtesy, how can they be expected to help correct the problem?

When it comes to holding teachers and administrators in high regard, or to showing special appreciation for their expertise, or to offering admiration for leadership, or to teachers gaining credibility based on their student's positive experience,  it is safe to say that parents would universally hope that their child would develop this kind of respect for their teachers.  Yet, parents complain both privately and publicly that too many teachers in the middle school fail to act based on the idea of earning respect.  Instead, some teachers demand it and foolishly believe they can browbeat students into giving respect. It doesn't work that way.

Linda Starr, a columnist for Education World, identified in a 2006 article the behavior of teachers that she considered  to be classroom bullies.  Among other points, she wrote:

"...those who can, manage their classrooms. Those who can’t, manage their students. The former are educators; the latter are bullies. And, believe me, you can tell the difference!

...Educators privately counsel chronic discipline problems. Bullies publicly humiliate chronic misbehavers.

...Educators, aware of the power they wield over their students, choose their words and actions carefully. Bullies wield their power recklessly, frequently resorting to anger and intimidation.

...Educators are proactive; they create classroom environments that minimize student misbehavior. Bullies are reactive; they blame students for the lack of order in their classrooms.

Educators educate. Bullies humiliate."

Essentially, the author is trying to point out to educators that respect is earned and that there are no shortcuts in that process.  Good work earns respect from students and parents, but forcing the issue just makes matters worse.  And, if there is any question about whether bullying behavior by teachers themselves contributes to a cycle of soured relationships and continuing behavior problems, consider a 2005 study published in the American Journal of Psychology.  Authors Twemlow and Fonagy set out to see if there was a relationship between teacher bullying and student behavioral problems as reflected in suspensions from school. They found that:

"Teachers from schools with high rates of suspensions reported that they themselves bullied more students, had experienced more bullying when they were students, had worked with more bullying teachers over the past 3 years, and had seen more bullying teachers over the past year. These findings suggest that teachers who bully students may have some role in the etiology of behavioral problems in schoolchildren."

Not all teachers who are bullying students realize that their behavior is a problem.  Plus, there are teachers who use their position to throw doubt on parental complaints when they arise, or who utilize the automatic "respect" some parents have of teachers in order to defend against questions.  Alan McEvoy of Wittenburg University, an authority on violence and victimization, gave a 2005 paper on teacher bullying in which he noted:

"...teachers who bully may employ a number of methods to deflect anticipated or actual complaints about their offensive conduct. One common method is trying to convince targets that they are paranoid or crazy, that they have misperceived or misrepresented the behavior in question, or that it is all in their mind. It is also common for bullies to impugn the motives or performance of students, colleagues, and supervisors who register a complaint. For example, an abusive teacher may argue that a student who complains is simply trying to excuse his or her “questionable” academic performance. This shifts attention from the teacher’s inappropriate conduct to a discussion of “standards” and to the student’s motivation for complaining. This also has the minimizing effect of suggesting to others that what is at stake is merely a 'personal difference,, rather than a systematic abuse of power."

This statement is valuable in understanding the problem in Readington.  If teachers who are exhibiting signs of bullying students can effectively deflect criticism from parents or students or even colleagues by using the mixed-meaning of the word respect, then the true depth of the problems in their classroom can be obscured.  If we as a district and a community do not define in specific terms what we mean by respect versus courtesy, or the kind of specific behavior we expect from students and teachers, then we are vulnerable to being victims of a few educators who can use the confusion to their advantage.  If this goes on for long periods of time--as it has--then we may create a dysfunctional culture within the school which reinforces a cycle of bad behavior and bad outcomes.

McEvoy makes another point especially worth considering in Readington:

"In many schools – perhaps most schools – at least one or more teachers can be identified as abusive toward students. Students will be in substantial agreement about which teachers are high rate offenders. The same degree of agreement may hold true for the colleagues of these offenders. They too appear to know which colleagues are abusive. The public nature of bullying patterns increases the likelihood of consensus on those who are most extreme in their behaviors. Simply stated, the faculty and students within the institution often are in private agreement about who the few culprits are, and express deep frustration at feeling powerless to stop the problematic behavior. "

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Over many, many years, the Readington Middle School  has developed a negative culture based on a cycle of poor judgment and classroom tactics, and based on a corruption of the meaning of the concept of respect.  Only strong leadership can break this cycle of subtle abuse, allowing the good teachers in the middle school to flourish and earn respect and encouraging the dysfunctional teachers to mend their ways or move on.  Just as there should be no question that parents need to improve their skills and give their children a behavioral foundation of common courtesy, there should be no question that the dysfunctional teachers must be recognized by the school leadership for what they are really doing.  There should come a day when entering the middle school is not a fearful, surprising experience for students and parents; a day when two-way communication between home and school is the norm and admiration among educators, parents and students is mutual.   Only a handful of administrators are in a position to start the ball rolling.