Myths and Co-optation

In late 1996, when I realized that common sense and normal interactions with many of the people-in-power within the public school system did not work, I sought assistance from other sources. One of these happened to be a book.

"You, Your Child, and Special Education" - A Guide to Making the System Work by
Barbara Coyne Cutler

It made a lot of sense as I connected to the issues that were outlined. Parents like me are found everywhere. What I liked about the book was how she conceptualized "the system" and "parents". For instance, she conceptualized some "myths". She stated "they are effective in keeping a smokescreen around the human and everyday limitations and imperfections of the people who work for school systems, and, to the extent that they silence or confuse parents, they provide security to "threatened" school personnel. However, the myths do not really benefit anyone, - children, parents, or even school personnel." pg 16

She wrote about "myths about educators". They include:
"Educators are super experts in their field"
"Educators are totally objective"
"Educators are free agents"

And then she says this: "Professionals caught in the super expert myth try to maintain the appearance of knowing all out of fear that otherwise parents or colleagues will question their competence. Furthermore, the need to appear super competent may become more imperative if school budgets are tightened and more people vie for fewer permanent school positions. School personnel may feel financially and professionally threatened if they confess they do not have all the educational answers at their fingertips." pg 30-31.

Having said all of that, Cutler goes on to outline ineffective ways to deal with the system. The one I choose to point out is what she calls "co-optation". While she talks primarily about parents, I can't help but think this same strategy works for "disgruntled" school employees also.

While reading some of the local blogs, I can't help but wonder if these strategies will be used to rein in the ones who are vocalizing issues.

Once members of this group grow weary from struggling, they become grateful for kind words and special relationships. "Some schools are experts at recognizing these parents and do just enough to keep them in an ingratiating posture: a few kind words.. a little threat... . Be careful of the teacher or administrator who tells you that you are not like the other parents(because you are so understanding and realistic), who shares his or her problems with you, who is always in when you call, and who is unusually prompt about returning your calls. "

"Co-optation is a hard pattern to change because the seduction... is gradual, even insidious, process during which you have may occasions to develop the habit of supporting and sympathizing with the school person."

In an earlier post I asked this question - how do some people sleep at night?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in myths and co-optation.

The Training of Coded Language - Another Brush,Another Incident, but keeping out of legal jeopardy

I spoke of the coded language that is taught in IDEA training meetings. I have spoken about obfuscation of the law by those who should know. The following is straight from a publication that is developed by the District for the District.


http://www1.sdhc.k12.fl.us/~ese.dept/communicators/ESEComm1104.pdf

From : THE EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNICATOR November-December, 2004 Vol. 4 No. 4


WHAT NOT TO SAY AT IEP MEETINGS !
When parents make requests at IEP meetings there are some things that you shouldn't say in
response; using these phrases could place the district in legal jeopardy if the parent files for
due process later on:
 We can’t do… - We don’t believe…
 No student gets more than…  It would cost too much to…
 It would take too much...  We don’t do…
 We never do…  We only do…
Instead, show that you’re listening by asking:
Where did you hear about that ?
 Which IEP goals do you see that addressing ?
 Do you have data on that ? Can you get us information?
 Have we described what we’re doing in the program we’re using ?

This speaks volumes to one who understands the game. I don't care who wrote it. But it is pretty clear that the focus is on protecting the system -gate keeping if you will.
It also clearly says to "show you are listening by asking...." as to "show you are listening by answering the question or addressing the issue".

If one honestly looks at these feigned "listening strategies" it is no wonder that the special education realm is frustrating for all. I continually hear about teacher retention and the teacher shortage in special ed. Dealing with students and parents is a hell of task. But dealing with a system that "shows you are listening" does not work.

How To Sleep At Night

As Concierge of the Motel Special Ed, I have often wondered how some guests can sleep at night under certain circumstances. For instance, when an employee tells someone or is told that under no circumstances are they to commit to services or supports for a student, no matter what the evidence is that justifies the need. A justification within the walls of Special Ed makes it a moral, ethical and legal responsibility to commit to this need. How do they go against their personal and professional beliefs and ethics?

The answer perhaps lies within the social concept formulated by Chester Barnard. One should read the complete critique, but I have chosen a segment that addresses a potential answer to what I have long wondered. I did not know the word abnegation before now. I guess the moral imperative of the executive is stronger than the moral imperative of one's self or the student, and that these employee's purpose is for the organization, not the student. It also means they have met the last condition of being satisfied and manipulated.

From
THE RELEVANCE OF CHESTER BARNARD
FOR TODAY’S MANAGER
Jay P. Chandran, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Richard DeVos Graduate School of Management
Northwood University

"This is in line with Barnard’s moral imperative for executives, although Bartlett and Ghoshal treat the subject more impersonally—they see purpose as an organizational rather than an individual responsibility. Barnard asserts that the most important single contribution required of the executive is loyalty, or domination by the “organization personality” (Functions, p. 220). This assertion is based on Barnard’s concept of executive responsibility, which transcends hierarchy and embraces managers from the lowest echelons within the organization all the way to the Chief Executive. Only by embodying such loyalty can the executives bring about in their subordinates the condition of “self-abnegation” (Functions, p. 84), or the subordination of one’s personal outcomes to those of the organization. This condition brings about in individuals the “willingness to serve” which in turn results in cooperation. These interrelationships, when sustained over long periods of time, can be considered a manifestation of purpose, or as proof of its existence. They also indicate that the conditions of efficiency and effectiveness have been met. As shown in Figure 1, this can only be accomplished by a manager who takes a balanced approach, and treats his or her subordinates as subjects to be satisfied as well as objects to be manipulated. McClelland & Burnham (1995) would define such a manager as an Institutional manager."

http://www.telelavoro.rassegna.it/fad/socorg03/l4/barnard.pdf

(anything in this post that is similar to side commentaries about Trained Staff and Special Ed Language (semantics save money) is purely coincidental.