How Listening to Students Can Help Schools to Improve

            This chapter really made me question the culture of schools and the advantages and disadvantages of both small and large schools.  In the western suburbs where I live, large high schools seem to be the norm.  Many of the large high schools in the area are top rated.  I looked up the rankings of high schools in Illinois on U.S. News Education (http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/illinois), and found many of the top ranking schools to be large school either right in Chicago or in the suburbs.  I am not sure how these rankings are done.  I believe testing is a big factor in them, and as we read in Hernandez and Banks & Banks, much standardized testing is bias towards the standard culture and language.  The advantage of personalization is a clear advantage for small schools.  Safety is another huge advantage listed for smaller schools.  I was surprised to read that in smaller schools, 94 percent of students reported that they felt safe compared to only 46 percent of students in larger schools feeling safe.  I was shocked that less than half of the students in larger schools actually felt safe!  It is hard to imagine actually concentrating on schoolwork when your basic safety is in question! 

Overall what I got out of this of this chapter is the importance of school culture.  Regardless of the size of the school, administration and teachers should work with the students to create a safe and motivating school culture students to strive in.  The quote, “In schools where decisions about reform are made in a top-down manner by administrators with little, in any, input from teachers, it is highly unlikely that such an approach to listening to students would ever be embraces” (p. 70).  This really stuck out to me as something I observed when substitute teaching.  I substitute taught mostly in Kindergarten classrooms.  In classrooms where the teachers had the autonomy to allow students “choice time” and had less of an emphasis on the text books, the students seemed very happy to be in class and I had barely had to give any behavioral redirection.  In the classrooms where the principals enforced a more rigid use of textbooks and did not allow for choice time, I had to spend much of the time redirecting students.  I can see how behavior problems with this “top-down” manner would persist as the students move through the grades.  Because of this variation in management from the top, I was a little skeptical for the suggestion of the students on page 67 to, “Have administrators observe teachers in classes with greatest disruptions so that they can help them to become better at managing students.”  I think that in theory this is a great suggestion, as it allows the administration to be more connected with what is going on in the classrooms and to hopefully be a great resource for the teacher.  I just think that in doing this, it is important for the administrators, teachers, and students to work together as a team. 

I can see how the idea of having conversations with students, especially those who are connected with their peers, even if they are not models of the ideal student conduct.  Being able to incorporate students and letting them make decisions in their school experience reminded me of Banks & Banks Social Action teaching methodology.  The wonderful part of this approach is that it does not require additional resources.  It utilizes the number one resource the schools have- the students.  This chapter left me hopeful for the possibilities of teacher/student/administrator collaboration.