Shanker’s Article on The Real Victims

Albert Shanker for 25 years was the columnist for Where We Stand in the New York Times and also president of the American Federation of Teachers. His condition on the Real Victims addressed the need for alternative programs to resolve wildness and disorder in schools. He agrees with Education reformers about setting proud standards for students to achieve. But its worthless Shanker argues if students ar continually in fear of a stray bullet hitting them or classes ruled by roiling students.Shanker opens with an example of school violence, how it terrified one student witnessing the stabbing of some other student. Fearful of herself being stabbed too, the girl dropped out of school but managed to crystallise a GED and further her instruction into college. Not many could pass off the footsteps of this palmy girl Shanker warns. umpteen students he states are scared and disarrayed and addled to school and erudition.He gives an example of disruption and how if not equally mo re(prenominal) damaging it is when compared to school violence. If there is one student that is disruptive in a class then the teachers time leave alone be spent on trying to contain this student quite than attend the many who want to learn Shanker states. As a take Shanker concludes this will wreck the concentration of the many learning students in that class. in that respect 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 cherry-red 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 petty is done to kids who keep others from learning.As a result of this failure to compensate 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 shaverren in schools that do not watch 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 land 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 alternatively he wants to see a change in the frame. 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 powerful remedy to the system of things is that children with impressionable minds will learn the wrong lessons Shanker claims. To assume his reasoning he gives an example of a child committing violence against another. The by-standers honoring 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. Childrens virtuoso 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 pen 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 war-ridden and troublesome students, Shanker concludes.