In Elizabeth Weil’s piece, American Schools are Failing Nonconformist Kids, she outlines how

schools strip students of their individuality and creativity. She discusses the use of various

classroom management strategies, particularly social emotional learning, as methods of control

to make students exhibit “appropriate” behavior. These classroom management techniques push

for conformity and obedience while simultaneously destroying student individuality. Weil has a

valid point, but under the current structure of the education system, what alternatives do teachers

have? Isn’t some level of conformity in schools, and society, necessary and needed? The use of

classroom management techniques and the conformity they call for are imperative to student

learning in today’s schools.

Weil begins her piece by discussing an experience she had with her daughter in which her

daughter was referred to receive occupational therapy services because her impulsivity was a

distraction in the classroom. Weil was not willing to accept this due to the message it would send

her daughter—something is wrong with her. Her husband had asked the teacher if their daughter

had been punished, and the teacher said no. Weil describes how she feels we are in a world in

which “authority figures pathologize children instead of punishing them.” She goes on to

describe the several methods schools use to control unruly children, and why there is a need to

control them in the first place. According to Weil, schools are not fostering free-thinkers due to

high-stakes testing and the fact that “teacher pay and job security have been tied to student

performance on standardized tests.” Self-regulation, shared-decision making, and social

emotional learning become tactics to keep students in line and behaving appropriately for the

collective good. Weil has a negative perspective on all of these techniques, as they do not value

the child for their individuality, but are used as a means to make children obedient and in control.
It is valid to say that schools destroy student individuality. This is a result of how policy makers

have chosen to define success in schools—high performance on standardized tests. Weil is right

when she discusses the fact that students aren’t taught to think outside of the box. There isn’t

time for this type of learning when so much importance is placed on testing. In my experiences

with third grade literacy curriculum, students spent a large portion of their literacy block just

learning strategies to take a test. Weil also has a valid point that the use of OT services and the

push for self-regulation sends the message to students that something is wrong with them and the

unique aspects of who they are, are actually their downfall. She says that authority figures in

schools no longer punish students, they pathologize them. Isn’t the use of OT or teaching

students self-regulation skills better than punishing them? Wouldn’t punishment for a 5-year-old

child not being able to sit still be much more harsh and detrimental than providing them with a

weighted lap pad or ball to squeeze? I had a student this year in my Young Fives class who was

completely unable to face forward or stay on his bottom, despite redirections and positive

reinforcement. He would continuously contort his body while on the carpet which became a

distraction to other students and interrupted my teaching. He was not purposely “rebelling” he

just needed to move his body. Of course, I never thought that something was wrong with him. He

was five. Five year olds need to move around. They are new to school and are learning how to

interact with a larger group of children all day long. According to Weil, my decision to reach out

to the school occupational therapist and implement different strategies was probably sending the

message to my student and his parents that he was a problem in need of fixing. But isn’t a big

reason students are in school is to learn? And how can he learn if I don’t try different methods to

help him learn? Is it fair to other students who are trying to learn if they are constantly shifting

their attention to him? Isn’t the shift in their attention to him, in itself, potentially making him
feel like something is wrong with him? After collaboration with the family and OT, I provided

him with a visual spatial boundary and a hand fidget. This did end up improving his focus during

whole class instruction, and when I checked for his understanding periodically throughout the

lesson he demonstrated listening. So, was the implementation of this strategy embarrassing him

or was it helpful? Isn’t this a part of the discussion of equity? Students need different things to

help them learn. If I hadn’t taken these steps to help him learn, he would have been a student

who slipped through the cracks. In a way, Weil demonizes teachers and schools for making

equitable decisions that are meant to help, not hinder students.

Weil’s attack on shared decision making also fails to see the benefits. Weil quotes progressive

education commentator Alfie Kohn on shared decision making saying it’s “fundamentally

dishonest, not to mention manipulative.” The quote continues: “To the injury of punishment is

added the insult of a kind of mind game whereby reality is redefined and children are told, in

effect, that they wanted something bad to happen to them.” Many child development theories

stress the importance of allowing children to have choice in the classroom because it gives power

to students. Of course, teachers hold the ultimate power because they are providing the options.

So, in a sense, it can be manipulative. However, choice and decision making are important in the

classroom and as members of society. Throughout their lives, children will have choices and

there will be consequences for those choices. Schools should prepare students for the realities

they will face when they grow older and become more active members of a democratic society.

Lastly, Weil discusses how social emotional learning and self-regulation are the new age

methods to foster conformity and obedience in schools. Advocates for SEL say emotional
intelligence will help students academically. Weil provides a different perspective, citing a paper

from Florida International University which “found minimal correlation between emotional

intelligence and college students’ GPAs.” I was challenged to consider if the push for SEL

curriculum is just another money grabbing opportunity for people in power. Are teachers and

schools being misled and buying into something that has no real benefits? There are positives to

SEL, though. By teaching children to understand their emotions and the emotions of others, and

providing them appropriate ways to express those emotions, they will have more successful

relationships and be better advocates for themselves. Explicitly teaching children how to cope

with their emotions and trauma should not be seen negatively. SEL also teaches social skills that

are important in the classroom and life. It is important to be able to listen to others speaking, and

show classmates respect. In the classroom, students have to be able to follow rules and conform

to some level. Lack of conformity results in chaos. This is true in society as well. Laws and rules

are created to maintain structure. We know as adults, some laws and rules need to be questioned,

and in some cases, fought against. I suppose this is something we want our children to be aware

of, too. Sometimes rules don’t make sense and aren’t fair, and as teachers we should listen to our

students when they voice concern and give them power when we can. One way to do this is by

co-constructing classroom expectations that students and teachers agree on.

Most frustrating about Weil’s piece is that there are no alternatives offered for effective

classroom management that spares the dignity of children. The answer to this would be an

education revolution which is a long process, so teachers have to do what they can for the short-

term. As previously stated, students are in school to learn. The choices teachers make to support

students in that learning may develop negative self-images for students, but it would be a
disservice to them if teachers didn’t try. No good teacher wants their students to think something

is wrong with them, but no good teacher can give up on their students. It is obvious that the

education system is very flawed and I do not disagree with Weil that schools are failing

nonconformist children. As teachers, our hands are tied. Conformity in schools is needed to

foster learning and ensure a safe environment. Teachers must hold some power over students

while also recognizing when power can be given back to students. We cannot revolutionize the

system overnight, so we have to do what we can with what we have. It is our duty, though, to

continue questioning the normalized practices in schools and become more active in the political

sphere, fighting for change for the sake of our children.