One Angry Kid
April 15th, 2009Lunch is a tough time.
Don’t get me wrong—I love the lunch period at MRHS, and always have. The lunch program is fantastic—the quality, nutrition, and speed of the program is years ahead of what it was when I was a student, and the people who are there are uniformly fantastic.
And it’s not dealing with the kids. Heck, I love the chance to sit down at a random table and engage in a conversation with someone I don’t know—and might someday. If we listen a bit, we can hear all sorts of things, and occasionally offer a word of support, advice, or any number of other little services.
Still, lunch is tough. For many students, it’s a chance to fall away from the established rules of decorum and into what they’re used to at home—or pick up from the media. Despite the hoard of adults in the room, walking around, saying hello, watching and engaging with kids, there’s so much going on that is missed—a host of language, conversations, and actions that, if we were to notice them, we’d correct.
Because of its unstructured nature, lunch is therefore a “red zone” area—and for those students who have the most difficulty navigating social situations, it’s the most dangerous. It’s counterintuitive (for them) but the areas that they enjoy the most (because the social rules they don’t understand or know how to manipulate that exist in the classroom) are exactly the areas in which they need the most social help.
So with that as background, it’s pretty clear that a kid sticking nuts and screws into his mouth and then flinging them at other people is going to cause a problem.
Here is where it gets complicated. Spitting boy flings things at student B. Student B, making a poor behavior choice, retaliates by flinging the cardboard lid of an ice-cream cup back at spitting boy, who ducks.
Ice-cream cup flies across cafeteria, lands on student C. Student C immediately stands up, yells at the entire lunch room, and then is so angry that storming out the room is the only option.
In talking with the involved parties, what struck me was the anger in student C—and the friends at the same table. It wasn’t even over damage to self or clothing (which I could appreciate): The anger came out of a sense of humiliation, a sense of wounded pride.
I can’t really describe the sense that came from these three; it was very close to what would be expected from a mafia movie.¹
But more than a bad episode of the Sopranos, it sounded more like something out of Al Jareeza or the inner city—it sounded the way those who find themselves outside of the system, who feel humiliated and powerless, who have no real voice—it sounded like that.
Some of this, I’m certain, comes from the home. I’ve a hunch that there isn’t much held out as a dream, as opportunity. I know that the administration went out of their way to make it obvious that there would be appropriate action taken to resolve the issue, but that wasn’t going to be enough. “There will be blood” seemed to be the dominant thought process.
I have a hard time getting a handle on that kind of anger—or knowing what to do to solve it.
It’s a scary thought that the towns in the Monadnock district have students who are as disaffected, as cut off from a sense of belonging and community, as any young man or woman in the inner city or a third world nation. But I somehow have the sense that it’s very true, and the question comes down to involvement—how do these students gain the sense that they matter, and that they’re a part of the community?
I know that one of the things that’s being considered is requiring, as a graduation requirement, some sort of community service, some sort of school extra-curricular. I think it’s long over-due—and a very good idea. Service organizations, and involvement in something seems to be a key part of academic success…
But, perhaps, also the solution to a great many other problems we’re having—as a school, and a nation.
1 “You talkin to me? You talkin to me? I’ll put you in the ground.” It was that bad. ↺
April 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Good luck getting a handle on “that kind of anger.” You’re not alone in trying to figure out what makes people say and do what they do when they have plenty of other options to choose before doing it. Let’s just hope someone can reach the three you wrote about before they become another U.S. Department of Justice statistic.
As for the lunchtime quandary, why are those bullies still allowed to intimidate the “good kids?” Just like adding another cop on the corner to combat the disruptive behaviors of a few at any decent-sized downtown bar closing, nothing is going to change until those whom cause the problems are held accountable.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hey Eric,
A-yup. We’ve had this conversation before, and I remember clearly how frustrated you were with the lunchroom. It’s better now—the administrators are a massive presence at the lunch I help supervise, and in general, things are peaceful.
Still, it is frustrating. The real problem is that we’re at odds with ourselves—the most effective thing we could do would be to remove the bad elements. The one thing we can’t do is remove the kids who cause the problems—they need the help the most. When I figure out that quandary, I’ll let you know. You know as well as I that no matter how small the group, the two who shouldn’t find each other inevitably well.
It’s appropriate I mention that today, the ten-year anniversary of Columbine. We play with very dangerous fire, sometimes.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:16 am
[...] bit of action over on the “One Angry Kid” post in the comments. Worth adding to the [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 10:16 am
[...] bit of action over on the “One Angry Kid” post in the comments. Worth adding to the [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Removing the problem child or children and housing them for an entire lunch period will cause more problems than it will solve¬¬– just look at the American prison system! Grouping the worst behaving people together will not only worsen their behavior, the mere act of separating someone from society causes fundamental changes to their behavior. (On the opposite end of the spectrum, just talk to any AP or Honors student and ask them how they compare to lower-performing students.)
No. What I am suggesting is the removal of the worst offenders to a structured lunch period where an adult or qualified professional can address their behaviors. Removing from the other kids, those who want to eat lunch and rest in peace, those needing additional help socializing. Punishment? Maybe. However, at least the disruptive students will have a chance to become human for the first time in their struggling lives with some one-on-one help. In addition, an army of teachers will not have to waste their time stand post watching over an assembly of responsible kids.