Shanker’s Article on The Real Victims

Albert Shanker for 25 years was the columnist for â€Å"Where We Stand† in the New York Times and also president of the American Federation of Teachers. His article on the Real Victims addressed the need for alternative programs to resolve violence and disorder in schools. He agrees with Education reformers about setting high standards for students to achieve. But its worthless Shanker argues if students are continually in fear of a stray bullet hitting them or classes ruled by disruptive students. Shanker opens with an example of school violence, how it terrified one student witnessing the stabbing of another student. Fearful of herself being stabbed too, the girl dropped out of school but managed to earn a GED and further her education into college. Not many could follow the footsteps of this successful girl Shanker warns. Many students he states are scared and disarrayed and lost to school and learning. He gives an example of disruption and how if not equally more damaging it is when compared to school violence. If there is one student that is disruptive in a class then the teacher†s time will be spent on trying to contain this student rather than attend the many who want to learn Shanker states. As a consequence Shanker concludes this will wreck the concentration of the many learning students in that class. There is a high level of tolerance for this kind of behavior he states, and school officials seem to be at a loss. Shanker claims that students carrying guns or drugs or who have been violent to other students have simply been transferred to another school, and those students who are chronically disruptive seem to deserve more tolerance. He states that little is done to kids who keep others from learning. As a result of this failure to remedy the problem Shanker observes that parents that are very much aware of the situation go for vouchers and tuition tax credits. Hoping that by placing their children in schools that do not tolerate violence or disorderly conduct will shield them from it. Many education experts he points out argue that our first responsibility is to the minority of violent and disruptive kids. These kids they claim have a ‘right† to an education and that they deserve to stay in class too. He refutes this point by addressing the rights of the rest of the students making the majority of the class. Those he claims that are ready to work and willing to learn. Why he questions would we want to threaten their security and education. Shanker defends himself that he does not want to put the violent and disruptive children on the streets rather; he wants to see a change in the system. A system he urges that does not surrender the vast majority of willing and learning children for the few and violent children. A consequence of not finding an effective remedy to the system of things is that children with impressionable minds will learn the wrong lessons Shanker claims. To support his reasoning he gives an example of a child committing violence against another. The by-standers watching this happen are positive something bad will happen to this violent student. To the surprise of the children, the teacher gets in trouble for reporting the incidence. Children†s sense of right and wrong fades, a bad lesson taught and a violent child is automatically made a leader for the rest to observe and follow Shanker concedes. Shanker argues that the system is irrational and this is why irate parents demand vouchers and tax credits, anything that could save their children from the few violent children who take hostage the educational system. Rather than the majority of wiling and learning students move out, why not move the few aggressive and troublesome students, Shanker concludes.