Read this article about the broken window theory. And then watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5rp9CvUKh4&app=desktop.
There has been a lot of talk, particularly in the blog from two weeks ago, about rules that many students see as "useless", or "stupid". So, tell me what you think about the broken window theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
If you need some more information, I provided you with a link to a wiki just to give you a general idea of what it is.
How and why might the broken window theory be important to a school? Give me your reaction to the theory and general and whether or not you think the theory is a good one. What might be some of the benefits of a broken window theory and what might be some of the problems. Why do you think it is so controversial?
The theory proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling known as the broken window theory is quite interesting and relates to the school community, particularly Elk County Catholic. Basically this theory proposed the idea that maintaining an environment and controling the way it looks, feels, etc, will cut down on bigger crimes. So by cleaning up the smaller things, bigger problems will be prevented. After reading the articles, watching the YouTube video, and reading the Wikipedia page, I started to understand this theory more and actually thought about it relating to my life as a student in a school with many simple small rules. With that being said, is Elk County Catholic a school where crime is high? Of course not. What I am looking at is the part where smaller rules are enforced to make the environment of the school maintained. Let me explain. In the broken window theory they use the example that if a building has a broken window, then it is likely people will continue to break the windows of the building which will lead to further issues. Those issues could be higher crime rates because people tend to do crimes in run down areas such as places with broken windows, not cleaner places. By fixing the small issue of the broken window, further problems can be prevented. Same thing can occur in a school, even our school. If we do not clean up problems such as colorful socks or eating after a certain time, further issues that are bigger might occur. If a student wears orange socks when the dress code does not permit that, they might think that since that rule is not enforced the hair length rule won't be either causing a student to grow his hair at a unpleasant length. Is it a big problem that a student wears orange socks? Not exactly, but if small rules are not enforced, more elaborate rules might not be followed either. If the school is a place that is a maintained and controlled environment, just like these neighborhoods that are in the article, the students will like to be there, creating a second home for them, rather than a place where they are forced to be.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the theory, I support their stance and agree with it. A main reason is because of the experiment discussed in the article. They put a car without a license plate in the middle of a neighborhood in the Bronx. They left it untouched and no one was watching it, and within minutes it was broken into, items of value were stolen, and when everything of value was gone the vandalism and destruction began. Then the car that was placed in Palo Alto was left untouched for a week, until a member on the team of study went up the car and actually smashed it and started the vandalism. After he did that, other joined in and destroyed it. That proves the point of the broken window theory being true. A main reason for the Bronx vaildalism is because, let's face it, that is a neighborhood known to be a little run down and sketchy. There is abandon property and shady buildings that add to the vandalism.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDeleteSome benefits of the theory would be that it might not lessen the crime rates, it make people feel a little more comfortable being out in neighborhoods. As the survey suggest, many people get nervous and scared when there is a group of teenagers, even going as far as they would cross the street to avoid a single teenager, so with the police making sure everything is okay people feel safer. The disadvantage that was discussed in the article was that people were being arrested by police for "suspicion" and other things just for walking in a neighborhood. This takes away some people's freedom as they discussed and isn't always fair. The issue could become racial was well. Some people might disagree with the theory and say that regardless of what the environment is like, people will commit their crimes and do what they want. Maybe that is true, but I think that by controlling small issues as keeping strangers off of streets and all those examples will help maintain a better place to be.
Overall, the theory makes sense. Although the newly enforced rules at our school might spark some controversy, they need to be enforced in order to make other rules. Maybe the sock rule can be considered our broken window at ECC. Perhaps since one window is broken, students will start to throw more rocks and destroy more windows.
The broken window theory, developed by a criminologist and a social scientist in 1982, sought to explain the relationship between urban disorder and how it stimulated additional crime and anti-social behavior. Just like any other theory, the common denominator is that it was founded upon occurrences which were supported by a series of substantial experiments and observations. Of course, theories differ from facts, and therefore are not always one hundred percent accurate. Considering this, can the broken window theory be applied to a scholastic institution and if so, how effective can it be?
ReplyDeleteKelling's and Wilson's findings definitely can be fitted into specific school environments. Truthfully, I believe the application of this theory to certain schools is an essential component in establishing order. For instance, think of schools across the country whose hallways continually wreak havoc through violence, fighting, bullying, etc. Imagine if this disorderly conduct went unchecked. Students would develop the mindset that no one cares if they act in such an aggressive manner. Something would have to be done to control all the chaos, and here is where the broken window theory would be of necessary assistance. However, this proposition would not bode well for a school like Elk County Catholic. The behavior of some of the schools in large cities and run down areas is not comparable to that of our school. Regulating the little infractions would not help deter the major wrongdoings in our school. Cheating, for example, could be considered the "most severe crime." Something along the lines of eating an unhealthy snack could be classified as the "slightest misdemeanor." Those two actions have no relevance whatsoever. If the administration totally bans unhealthy snacks, how will that stop cheating? It won't. Even if it would happen to decrease by a slim margin, that would be the result of mere coincidence. One cannot say that "a study conducted at ECC showed that students who abstain from eating unhealthy snacks are seventy-five percent less likely to cheat in their work." That would be a logical fallacy, not to mention, a preposterous claim. Some other issues and controversies with this theory could include increased tension between law enforcement officers and citizens, plus racial discrimination. Also, it is hard to tell if reduced crime is actually a testament to its effectiveness. For example, if fewer and fewer vehicles are vandalized and stolen each year, should that statistic be attributed to the broken window theory's effectiveness or rather increased security technology?
Overall, I think the theory is good premise, as long as it is used in the proper way and under the necessary circumstances. It represents an appeal to logical reasoning, and as shown in past studies, has the ability to bring about order. It makes sense. Having officers in formidable urban areas enforcing the minor rules gives criminals and vandals no reason to even think about doing something that carries major consequences. After all, civil society demands order, which is something that the broken window theory has the power to bring about.
Jared:
DeleteI'm impressed with your blog, Jared. I think you organized it in a way that made it flow perfectly. First you stated what the theory was and then gave real life examples. I like how you compared the theory to a city school to our school. You showed the differences between the two, and I absolutely agree with your argument. I really enjoyed the part where you gave the study of students who don't each the snacks won't cheat thing, I found that funny! Are you saying that enforcing, say a rule like the unhealthy snack rule, pointless as it will not help anything, or just that it won't help major issues as cheating? Great job, I like reading your work!
Jared,
DeleteI thought your blog was very logical. You had great examples to back up each point that you made. I especially enjoyed your comparison between cheating and eating an unhealthy snack. I completly agree with you on that point especially.
Jared,
DeleteYour blog was very impressive. While you may be right in saying that eating unhealthy snacks will not lead to cheating, you can make other connections to small and large misdemeanors. For example, a teacher continually lets students get away with breaking the dress code. This leads the student to believe he can use his iPad while the teacher is having class. The teacher lets this act go also. Eventually the student loses respect for this particular authority and everything that comes with that, including their teaching method and classroom rules. The student cheats , and feels justified doing so. This is an example of how a student can push the boundaries on small things and then get away with larger things.
Gaber,
DeleteI was simply stating that cracking down on unhealthy snacks will not influence cheating. The essence of this theory is that if you prevent basic forms of crime like vandalism, it will control and stop serious crime, but I related this idea with how it would not work at school. I likened a minor offense such as eating an unhealthy snack to a "'misdemeanor" and related a major offense such as cheating to a "felony." Thanks for questioning, I hope I cleared things up.
Jared,
DeleteI really enjoyed your blog, you made some really good point especially about how cracking down on unhealthy snacks will not influence cheating. I think that was a great thing to say. Good job!!
Two weeks ago in our blog, we were asked to talked about why we love our school. Other than promoting the love for our school, we were also asked to make one constructive suggestion about how our school could be even better. Many of us discussed the small tedious rules that are being enforced at Elk County Catholic, and how the small rules shouldn't be enforced because there are more important things to deal with. Two weeks ago, I completely agreed with that. I was annoyed with teachers getting overly upset about shirts not getting tucked in, wrong sock colors, ties not being pulled all the way up, and many other "stupid" tedious rules I was not to fond of. Then I was introduced to the broken windows theory by scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. I had a sudden change of heart when I began reading and learning more about this theory. Basically, the theory states that if an urban environments is well maintained and is being monitored, it will reduce or prevent small crimes from taking place. By doing this, it displays an atmosphere of order hopefully cutting down on more serious crimes. Although, this theory can be applied in disciplinary forms such as in a school setting. As I began reading the article on this theory, the first thing that really jumped out to me was psychologist Philip Zimbardo's experiment and test in the broken window theory. His experiment consisted of an automobile without a license plate parked with its hood up on street in the Bronx, New York. A similar vehicle was also placed in Palo Alto, California and to see what would happen to daycare car in a different environment. It is obvious that the Bronx is known to be more of "sketchy" area than Palo Alto. The vehicle in the Bronx was torn apart within 10 minutes, but the one on Palo Alto was not touched in a week. The scientist of the experiment then went and smashed in the car and quickly others seemingly began to join in on the vandalism. This was a perfect experiment to show that the theory does work, but I realized it might not work at ECC. I took a step back and thought to myself, would this work in our school? I came to the conclusion that it might not work as well as it would in a bigger school where more crimes and other wrong doings take place. I think that there can be a lot of advantages when applying this theory, such as bigger crimes may decrease, it could help clean up neighborhoods or schools, and many other improvements in the environment. Disadvantages may include people being arrested for being suspicious like they said in the article, and also people continuing to commit serious crimes regardless of what the new environment changes are.
ReplyDeleteOverall, after reading the article, seeing the video, and learning more about the theory, I concluded that the theory makes sense. Although I am not quite sure it could work at ECC because we do not have trouble with serious crimes. Although, in bigger schools I can confidently say this theory will be a success.
Brad,
DeleteYou're introduction was great. I enjoyed how you connected this blog to one that we did a few weeks ago. You also did a great job incorporating the article into your blog.
Brad,
DeleteWhile you did not take a specific side on the topic, o thought your blog portrayed great ideas. It showed that the higher standard does in fact change the way people act. It may not make a giant difference at ECC, nut it sure does make some.
The broken window theory states that by preventing smaller crimes, larger crimes will become less common in society. The theory promotes the monitoring of certain groups of people that are likely to perform these crimes in order to stop them before they start. The theory can be used in several different scenarios to stop all forms of crime in various environments.
ReplyDeleteThe broken window theory can be essential to the development of students in a school. It will work to help students make the right choices and follow simple rules so that they are able to follow larger, more important laws in the future. By establishing a broken window theory in schools it will help students to understand that it is important to make good decisions, and by making good decisions they will stay out of small and large criminal acts. I believe that the theory can provide positive effects on students and all people in general if used properly. However, I also believe that you need a larger environment for the theory to have its full effect on everyone. The theory would be great to establish in schools as long as the school is large enough. In a small school like ECC, I believe the theory can still have some positive effects but not as many as it could for a larger school that has far more severe issues than ECC. The broken window theory can instill good, positive values in all people who are a part of it. The theory can end small criminal acts to also lessen, or stop larger crimes. The theory, however, could also seem a bit extreme because it would require everyone to be monitored more harshly. The theory may be so controversial because it would require more monitoring of people. For example, if the theory would be applied in schools, then all students would be watched more and would be in trouble for small things more frequently and it could begin to seem unnecessary and over the top. However, the theory can still provide school students and all people in general with positive values that will help society and last them for the rest of their lives. The broken window theory can still be extremely controversial, but it may still prove to work if it is used in the right environment under the proper circumstances.
Hailee,
DeleteI think you made some good points in your blog. I like that you include that the broken window theory would affect students in their later life rather than just in school. I also agree that the theory would have larger benefits at a bigger school, but it also provides benefits to schools like ECC. Although you were a bit repetitive, you did a good job of describing the benefits. I have to disagree with your idea of why it is controversial. I don't believe that monitoring people more makes it controversial, but it could be a potential issue. Also, it doesn't truly require students to be watched more because the staff should already be looking out for larger crimes, and the smaller crimes are not that hard to spot in addition. If the staff did monitor the students more closely and discipline them, it might actually help deter such crimes.
Hailee,
DeleteI like how you said that the theory can be used for several different scenarios in various environments. I completely agree with you that this theory can be very successful but mostly in larger environments not smaller environments like ECC. A disadvantaged you mentioned was the theory can cause extreme actions like monitoring more harshly. You showed a good example when explaining why it is controversial.
Hailee,
DeleteI like how you said the theory could prove its work in right environment under proper circumstances. I agree with that completely but j do believe it could work at ECC too. Good job on your blog though!!
Before reading the article and watching the video on the broken window theory, I had thought that the small rules had no purpose. After learning more about the theory, however, my viewpoint has taken a completely different direction. Although rules that prevent students from wearing certain clothes or doing certain actives seem fundamentally useless, they actually help prevent larger, more serious problems within the school. As "Broken Windows" addressed, maintaining an orderly environment is a vital part of preventing the occurrence of larger crimes. Statistically, crime is less frequent in controlled environments.
ReplyDeleteECC obviously does not have a serious crime problem, but stricter regulations help us to avoid such issues. It may not seem to be a big issue if a student wears a shirt that is not crew neck, but it could create a chain of disorderly behavior that the school intends to avoid with the rule. For example, if one girl wears a V-neck shirt and does not get scolded, more and more girls may start to wear shirts that do not conform to the dress code. Then, students might start to wear completely inappropriate clothing. The staff's disregard for the rule could lead the students to believe that the rules are unregulated and, therefore they do not need to follow them. One disruptive act can destruct the school's orderliness. We may not like the rules, but it is important that we follow and respect them because they contribute to our school's behavior and image.
The broken window theory does have some downfalls. The theory relies on the rules that are chosen to benefit the people, it depends on whether or not they actually provide benefits that help strengthen an environment. If the wrong rules are chosen, the entire idea is destructed. Every rule made by ECC is carefully debated to ensure that it is for the good of the students, staff, and school. For this reason, I think we should have faith that the rules are for our benefit. Also, the theory is dependent on people's willingness to follow the rules that are put into place. For the broken window theory to be effective, the majority of people must be willing to abide by the rules. Often, if people feel the rules are "stupid," or they do not understand the purpose of the rules, they will neglect to follow them, thereby counteracting the purpose of the rules. I believe a way to combat this issue at ECC would be explaining the purpose and reasoning behind a rule in addition to enforcing it. ECC has a number of intelligent students that require an understanding of a rule in order to follow it, I do not believe that request is unreasonable.
The broken window theory may be such a controversial topic because it requires appropriate rules to achieve an orderly environment, as well as people that are willing to follow those rules. The theory is completely dependent on variables in an environment. It requires an individual approach for every place it is used. Also, the people enforcing the rules must be incredibly careful to avoid bias. As stated in "Broken Window," issues can easily become racial. In a school such as ECC, the racial part may not be a big issue, but bias can be. Teachers and staff must be careful that they do not prejudge students to be "troublemakers" or "rule breakers."
Jenna,
DeleteYou did a good job answering all the required questions and your blog was structured well. However, if I'm not mistaken, two weeks ago you were the first to post the blog about Catholic schools, and it was you who sparked the debate that our school pays too much unnecessary attention to pointless and tedious details. I'm wondering how your opinion completely changed in a matter of two weeks, because of one article. I don't know if you just hoped to sound good or what, but for a student who has a unique ability of starting arguments, it is obvious you couldn't finish this one.
For many, so called "stupid" rules Interfere with their every day life and their general productivity. And while These rules may be bothersome, they are necessary. Many people think that the rules are petty and an excuse for teachers to yell at people. They think this because according to the broken window theory the rules are not for the disciplined, but rather those who need to learn obedience. Forcing people to follow the simplest rules builds respect, creates a higher standard, and keeps people from committing more serious crimes.
ReplyDeleteTeachers need to enforce the small rules because they have to do it to be respected. When students realize that they can push an authority figure around, they do it more and more. I know that when I was in grade school I had teachers I could respect and teachers I couldn't. The teachers I respected often taught me a lot with my corporation. The others however, never managed to teach a full lesson. While partly this was because of the teachers establishing authority, it was also because some teachers picked on the petty rules too much. When this was the case, they made the impression that teaching was not the goal, but unwavering discipline was. There is a fine line that all teachers need to walk to ensure a proper respect, while not going overboard.
When small rules are enforced it creates a higher standard in a school building. When students are cleanly dressed and have a professional setting, there is a higher standard. This includes people wearing the correct socks, shoes, and having the right behavior in the hallways. However, professionalism must also come from those enforcing the rules. As a student in fifth and sixth grade, I had teachers who cried and whined when rules were not followed. This unprofessionalism does not coincide with the higher standard the school was looking to impose.
According to the broken window theory, once one simple crime is committed, more and more are committed until it becomes serious. In schools, the broken window theory also applies. If a student learns that a teacher is lenient on the regular rules, they will keep pushing the limits and seeing if they can get away with more and more. After the standard is broken that small rules keep in place, students see no reason to keep acting professional. While the broken window theory and its practices may seem unnecessary and annoying to those who follow the rules because of their own moral code, it is a necessary endeavor that keeps institutions of all kind running smoothly.
Catherine,
DeleteI like that you addressed that there needs to be a happy medium for the theory to work properly. I had t truly thought about the respect and obedience aspects of the rules. That was a really strong point. Although I've never heard teachers "cry and whine," I'm going to take your word for it. I have, however, definitely heard students cry and whine about rules and that definitely contributes to unproffessionalism as well. Great blog!
Catherine,
DeleteI don't completely agree with the theory being a big success in little schools like ours, but you had a lot of great points to go along with your argument. I'm not sure I have ever seen a teacher "whine" and "cry" when it comes to enforcing rules, but you had different teachers than I did in grade school so you never know. Overall good blog
I am surprised that no one has commented on the creepy video of the soldiers eating dinner.
ReplyDeleteThe broken window theory has a lot of merit and is very logical. It says that fixing to small issues may lead to other bigger issues being corrected also. In the case of criminology, fixing vandalism and arresting people for breaking these small laws is actually really important. If the people were not arrested and held accountable for their actions then their is no point to having these dumb rules. The key is action because of doing something wrong. If our school is really serious about the broken widow theory, then they should enforce uniform punishment for wrong actions. There is no point of having stupid rules that attempt to fix the larger issues, if they are not enforced. If they were enforced and punishment was given, they most people would follow them and some larger issues might get fixed. There will always be some people who will not follow these rules, because they do not understand the meaning behind them. If the student body understood the meaning behind them, it could change their attitude toward the little rules. In the square meal videos the drill instructor repeatedly states that one of the reasons they make people do this is to make them uncomfortable and discipline them. This stupid little rule, has a major effect of the people there and they look really uncomfortable. The rules of eating, drinking, and sock color are really dumb and almost pointless if not enforced and taking seriously, but if they are they could have a major effect of the student body. This could reduce cheating, improve classroom respect, and enforce discipline school wide. If taken seriously and enforced properly then the theory of broken windows could help out our school out greatly and improve the attitude of all the students. This may even help with the important ties that actually matter to how a school rules effectively and with respect form students.
ReplyDeleteMitchell,
DeleteI guess you were the first to incorporate the video of the soldiers eating a "square" meal, so good job on that. Although your blog was concise, it contained a lot of ideas with potential. The one claim you had was absolutely preposterous though. You said that enforcing the rules of eating, drinking, and sock color could reduce cheating? How? I would love to hear your reasoning. I do agree when you say that the small rules have to be enforced, otherwise they are pointless, however your explanation of how the broken window theory would be of use to our school seemed faulty and ambiguous.
The broken window theory was a theory that officers protecting communities against small crimes like vandalizisim and public drunkenness. After reading this theory I found it very interesting and I would have to agree with it. While reading this theory they talked about how for example a window was broke on an abandoned house people will continue to brake the windows. If they control the one window braking then that will control the the bigger problems. This theory has to deal with many different situations. This theory would have to deal with ECC because our school enforces small rules like the color of your socks and type of clothes we are not allowed wearing on dress down days. I agree with this because they are working on the small rules to set a foundation for students. All these rules contributes to teaching students respect and disapline. Although this theory is beneficial in a way there is controversy tords something like this because people think the big problems should be solved and fixed and not to worry about the "stupid little stuff".
ReplyDeleteKira:
DeleteWhile I glanced at your blog, I was taken aback by the lack of length to your blog,which actually was the reason I read it, to see how you could write so little on this topic. I read it and I'm slightly disappointed. You seemed to have summarized what you read instead of explaining what it meant to you. Also, you failed to answer the questions that Mrs. Messineo had in her post. If you would have just followed the format, your blog would have been better and more in depth. You even could have just numbered the questions and wrote a small paragraph on each. Also, it would help to reread your work, as I found a number of grammatical errors that look bad for a high school advanced English course. I'm just trying to give you hints to help strengthen your blog.