I have been thinking a great deal about the recent shootings at Oxford High School in Michigan that saw four students killed and seven injured, including one teacher. Despite very troubling behaviour, which included an in-class online search for ammunition via his phone, and some very disturbing drawings, 15-year-old Nathan Crumbley was allegedly able to go on a spree of death and mayhem with no difficulty.
What went wrong?
Based on my own years in the classroom, I have a theory. The first thing we have to understand is that there is a chasm between what institutions of education claim to be and what they really are. Cut through all the proclamations of progressivity and inclusiveness, and you will find for the most part they are conservative bastions. And why they are that way has little to do with the teachers, who, for the most part, teach with real heart and the best of intentions. Their nemesis resides within the school and within the board/division: administrators.
The thing to understand about them is that, because so many of them aspire to even greater supervisory heights, they are risk-averse. Anything that might reflect badly on them, like upset, complaining parents, can impede their upward trajectory. I will draw upon but one of many personal experiences to illustrate this before I get back to the Michigan shooting.
Many years ago, I had a student enter my Grade 11 English class three weeks into the semester. The story was that she had been bullied in one of her other classes, and so her entire schedule was revamped. When I asked one of the vice-principals why this girl was being further victimized rather than sanctioning the bullies, she told me that they didn't know who the bullies were.
My spider-sense tingling, I went to see the head of guidance to ask her to look into this. About a day later, she confirmed what I had suspected: the identities of the bullies were in fact known. Why, then, was the victim further punished? The most logical conclusion I could draw was that punishing the bullies would have raised the ire of their parents. Serving a relatively affluent community, our school's parents were not loathe to lodge complaints to superintendents, and even the director, if things didn't go their way. Hence, the path of least resistance was followed by upending the victim's schedule. (The victim and her mother had recently moved to the area from France, and were likely not yet enculturated into the prevailing ethos).
There are additional illustrations I could give here, but in the interest of conciseness, I have provided just the one. Which brings us back to Nathan Crumbley and his parents. Despite the above-described disturbing behaviour, when they were all called into the office, his backpack was not searched and the parents refused the school's desire to send him home, i.e., suspend him. Now, unless things are radically different in American schools, there is no way someone can refuse to be suspended.
Clearly, the school administration didn't press the issue, and again, as in my personal example, I suspect they chose the path of least resistance in the face of defiant parents who are now, thankfully, facing four charges each of involuntary manslaughter.
This should never have happened, but that it did neither shocks nor surprises me. When administrators fail to do their jobs, when they put their career advancement above the safety and well-being of the students and parents they are supposed to serve, something is indeed rotten in the state of education.
