“I don’t consider myself a pessimist. I think of a pessimist as someone who is waiting for it to rain. And I feel soaked to the skin.”
― Leonard Cohen

When my kids reached about nine years of age, I came to a realization. Parenting the way I was doing it, wasn’t going to work.

It closely resembled the approach taken by my parent. The problem was the world bore little semblence to the world in which I grew up and they parented.

I never embraced the use of physical discipline, but I certainly trafficked in the reactionary. Being a Northeasterner, I was quick to raise my voice and throw out ultimatums. Neither went over well. My children quickly pushed back – hard.

It didn’t take long to realize that my desire too raise strong independent children and my parenting style were at cross purposes.

It took even less time to realize my influence was slipping away, even at that young age. Something needed to change.

If I wanted them to learn rigorous honestly and self analization skills, I’d have to model them.

I had to decide wether I wanted to be an authority or an influencer.

I had to decide if being right was more important then being consulted.

I had to decide whether I wanted to instill or help discover.

I had to decide whether I wanted to do things for them, or with them.

Basically, it came down to a decision to be in or out of the conversation.

My chooice was to be in the conversation. That’s not a decision that you can make without follow up and change.

If I was going to stay in the conversation I would have to become less vocal, less reactionary, and slower to voice my opinion.

That was 6 years ago, and it was a lot of work. I often failed to live up to my desired standards.

I would continue to raise my voice.

I fell prey to leaping to assumptions and making prouncements before I heard their version.

At times, I would try to mete out punishment in response to feeling a lack of control.

Always we’d go back after the fact and discuss my actions as well as theirs. I often explained to them that all of this was new to me and didn’t neccesarilly line up with how I perceived myself.

Look up the phrase “rebel without a clue” and you are likely to find a picture of me. In the past, someone was always earning my ire, and I was quick to battle – both verbally and physically.

The idea that there was a cost to a fight, even when you won, never crossed my mind. Nor did I ever consider that some words can not be retaracted and some actions can’t be undone. Those lessons came hard.

To this day, I often feel that my experiences and conclusions are superior to others, but I’ve learned to temper those thoughts. Though sometimes I am…never mind.

It’s been an extremely difficult transition, and certainly had its missteps, but as my kids enter their mid-teens, our relationship is solid and their both, all things considered, doing pretty damn well.

Most importantly, I think they realize that I trust them as much as they trust me. Thus I’m allowed remain part of the conversation.

You may balk at the term “allowed” and consider being included a right as opposed to a permission. I see it differently. Remeber I was an unabashed rebel without a clue.

I don’t bring any of this up because I’m looking for a pat on the back – parenting is way to complicated a proposition to be looking for accolades before you are in the grave – but rather because it wouldn’t hurt us to apply some of these principals to our personal and public lives.

These are odd times, but not entirely unique. The heightened news cycle and the access to endless information has altered our response and made them seem more unique, but some of this ground has been tread before.

In today’s world, context has been laid on the alter as a sacrificial lamb, while immediacy threatens to drown us instead of empower us.

We often feel as if we can devine the truth while we pick and choose our sources of information. Who’s truth are we really discovering?

We fall into the trap of perceiving being right as trumping everything. How we frame our responses matters, yet we pay little attention to that frame.

The internet allows us to find 50 people that find our views brilliant, but unfortunately it allows the same for our perceived opponents.

The internet allows us to cite 50 times our perceived opponents lied, unfortunately it does the same for the other side.

Self truth and the misbelief that shaming people can alter behavior has become our holy grail. Lost is the desire to stay in the conversation.

Maybe we shgould all re-read the Scarlet Letter.

It’s my position, that maybe all of us could be a little less reactionary.

Maybe all of us could yell a little less.

Maybe all of us could listen first, and talk second.

Maybe.

– – –

The battle over the fate of the US Department of Education continues to heat up. Ironically, a common thread with both supporters and detractors is a lack of clear knowledge of the responsibilities of the USDOE.

The primary function is to manage grants and other federal funds. While those funds are not insignificant, they are not at game changing levels either. In all of the talk of closing the department of education, there has been virtually no conversation around ending IDEA funding or Title 1 funding, the primary funding streams the USDOE administers. Free meal funds are already managed by the Department of Agriculture. So it’s safe to say that funding will continue as well, just be shifted to a different department.

The USDOE does not dictate curriculum or instruction. Both are local decisions though heavily influenced by state DOEs.

While the USDOE is responsible for enforcing federal education laws, let’s remember, education in K-12 schools is already handled largely at the state and local level. Public schools are primarily controlled by school boards and receive most of their funding through allocations from state legislatures and local sources,

I would further question how effective the USDOE is enforcing law. During Penny Schwinn’s tenure as Tennessee Education Commissioner the state was out of compliance for several years, with no penalty. Now, she’s up for Assistant Deputy of the USDOE. That doesn’t exactly send a strong message.

If anybody would be sad to see the USDOE disbanded, it would probably be the state DOEs. The Feds over the last several decades have proven to be an effective buffer against detractors.

Early on I learned, if you had a concern, you took it to the local entity who would shrug and explain how they agreed but their hands are tied by the state.

You’d go to the state and they’d tell you to same thing, but blame the Feds. Reach the Feds, and they’d send you back to the locals, claiming they exerted no such influence.

Couple laps through the circuit and you were ready to call it a day. Mission accomplished.

Then there is the research portion of their responsibility.

Some folks argue that the USDOE’s work with NAEP is crucial for evaluating the overall state of education in the United States by providing a standardized, nationwide measure of student achievement across various subjects, allowing policymakers and educators to identify strengths, weaknesses, and trends in education, ultimately informing policy decisions and guiding instructional improvements at the national, state, and district levels.

I say…meh.

Outside of policy wonks and academics, who really pays attention to NAEP results? Especially when there are enough assessments available to pick and choose the one that best serves your narrative.

Sure, policy makers often refer to NAEP numbers to promote or defend their prefered policies, but is that correlation or causation?

For example, did The Science of Reading rise in prominence due to actual results or a well orchestrated PR campaign that used NAEP scores as props?

One area of discussion I’d like to hear more about is the impact the dismantling of the USDOE would have on state DOEs.

The work and the resources are going to be there regardless of the vehicle used for administration. Are we at risk of expanding one while reducing the other? Is that really a desired outcome? How many fired USDOE employees will just return to education department of their home state and serve the same role?

Somebody will have to managed Federal money. If that administration is shifted to the state level, do those departments have the capacity to effectively manage the money?

Considering that Tennessee can’t even manage applications for opportunity scholarships in-house, I suspect we’ll see a rise in private corporations contracted to provide that management.

Otherwise, you are potentially looking at 50 people replacing one person to do the same job. That would cut down on unemployment.

Some defenders of the USDOE point to the fact that most civil servants retain their job despite changes in the presidency. They cite that continuance as a benefit and  fear a mass exodous couple lead to a reduction in talent.

Jared Bass, a senior vice president at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, said he worries about an “exodus” of civil servants who typically carry on in their jobs no matter who the president is.

“They’re not trying to score political points for anybody,” he said. “The outright elimination of the Department of Education would take a machete, when we should be using a scalpel, to some of the challenges our nation is confronting.”

Yes, and no. A perusal of the employment roills at both state and national levels show a large number of so-called reformers and an over influence by the likes of Teach for America, the Broad Institute, and TNTP. Civil servents may not be trying to score political points, but many are certainly serving an agenda seperate from that of students, teachers, and families.

In many cases, under the guise of “doing what’s best for kids” they are working at cross puposes to elected officials on either side of the aisle.

Losing some of these people wouldn’t suck.

Depicting all of them as defenders of the Americam public education system is a little disingenuous.

In the end, it will take an act of Congress to close the department, and that’s going to be a whole lot harder tnen writng executive orders.

– – –

It never ceases to amaze me how the Tennessee General Assembly has the ability to create counterintuitive legislation.

The latest example is the passing of in-school cell phone usage legislation to reduce student distraction, while promoting legislation requiring districts to collect student immigration status for students for the purpose of denying educational services, a guarenteed disrupter.

The reasons for Tennessee lawmakers pursuit of immigration legislation is two fold. First, you can’t have this conversation without acknowledging that their has been a dramtic increase in the cost of educating non-english speaking children.

Previously these costs were absorbed by large urban districts, but over the last few years that burden has shifted to smaller rural districts who can ill afford the increased expenditure.

The second is a desire is to create a challenge the United States Supreme Court issued decision in Plyer v. Doe in June 1982, which declared states cannot deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status. That ruling was based upon the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that resources saved by excluding undocumented children from public schools were far outweighed by the harm to America’s progress by doing so.

The former concern may be reasonable, the later questionable.

If schools do not have the resource to educate imigrant children, how do we suppose they’ll have the capacity to collect and manage data on those students?

On the state level, who will collect and manage that data? Sounds like another outside contract to me.

Per The Tennessean:

How schools and the state Department of Education could begin implementing the law, if passed, is unclear. The department would have to develop a new system for schools to verify immigration or citizenship status, and there could other effects on things like truancy laws if children are unable to access a public education.

Cue the parrot, sounds like another outside contract to me.

Tennessee’s bill would allowfor districts to either charge undocummented students tuition, or bar them from schools if they can’t pay. We all know how that game is played.

All you do is set the tuition just out of reach. If they somehow pay it, it’s a financial windfall. Moire likely, when they don’t, you can blame it on the fiscal and avoid your responsibility. Win win.

Still lawmakers try to appear selfless.

“You need to at least be able to ask that question,” said House Majority Leader William Lamberth, (R-Portland. Lamberth) who is sponsoring the House version of the bill,

“I think there will be districts out there that will ask that question and decide to still provide an education for those children, but there may be other districts out there that ask that question and say that’s just more than we can bear right now with the numbers that they’re seeing.”

Knowing educators like I do, I can’t see a whole lot of districts excluding children. Politicians, maybe. Educators, not so much.

The follow up question I would ask is, say a district does exclude students based on immigration status, how is their day then spent? Where do the go? How do you insure that their time is spent safely and productively?

Do you create seperate facilities solely for undocumented children? That doesn’t strike me as a particularly good idea, but does open the door for another private entity contract.

What about if the parents are undocumented, but the child wqas born here?

To what extent must schools pursue collecting information?

If a family fails to responsd can they be expelled till information is supplied? Considering that I haven’t signed a permission slip in years and am often slow to repond to school communications…is there now a heightened risk factor for me?

What’s the benefit of the legislation if it costs a school more to gather data then the saving realized through the provisions of the law? You know, maybe a district has a ton of documented immigrants but very few undocumented. Seems like that district would be absorbing an administrative cost while retaining an instructional cost. That’s not a win win.

Lot of questions remain and little time left in the calendar for this years session.

– – –

Years ago I told you about a tactic for reducing student suspension. numbers where a student is removed from class but they are not entered into the data base. Turns out that practice has a name, informal removal, and according to a report from the Tennessee Comptroller’s office, it’s taking place frequently. Often times to students with disabilities. It comes with a cost.

As an example, an informal removal can happen when a school asks a parent to pick up a child early due to disruptive behavior. Its a move that does not align with state and federal regulations for students with disabilities that enshrine their right to a free and appropriate education and protect those students from discriminatory disciplinary actions.

“A pattern of informal removals can result in a significant loss of instructional time for students with disabilities and, for those assigned to inclusive general education classes, reduce the time spent being educated alongside their general education peers,” the study stated.

The study recommends that district and school leaders examine their practices, create or update policies and properly document removals and disciplinary actions against students with disabilities.

From The Tennessean, “Generally speaking, hundreds of school principals surveyed for the study said they believe informal removals happen in Tennessee but could not provide precise numbers on them. The principals also largely agreed that a small subset of students with severe behavioral issues are more likely to be removed than other students with disabilities. Respondents said those issues include violent, destructive or insubordinate behavior by the students.”

Lack of Special Education staff was cited as a primary cause of informal removals. lack of space and training for Gen Ed teachers was also noted in survey responses.

Here’s the money shot from The Tennessean and a bell I’ve been ringing for years:

“While the study included the survey and a wide variety of interviews with state and district officials, advocates and others, it noted that its insights are limited. That’s due in part to a lack of documentation of informal removals. A relatively low survey response rate and possible reluctance by school leaders to speak candidly about informal removals are also a factor.”

Keep in mind, an informall removal’s impact to data isn’t limited to discipline numbers. Timed right, it can also be a tool for polishing up standardized test results. Test results that help administrators keep their gigs. Not saying…just saying.

Ssshhhh…don’t tell anyone.

– – –

If you have something you’d like me to highlight and share, send it to Norinrad10@yahoo.com. Wisdom or criticism is always welcome.

As you may suspect, keeping this blog going comes at a cost. In that light, I’ve set up a number of ways you can show your financial support if you are inclined.

I invite you to subscribe to Substack. The rates are reasonable if you choose to become a paid subscriber, and there remains a free option. The only difference is that one allows me to eat a little better, but I appreciate you signing up for either.

You can also donate through my Venmo (Thomas-Weber-10) or cashAp ($PeterAveryWeber)

A huge shout-out to all of you who’ve already lent your financial support. I am eternally grateful for your generosity. It allows me to keep doing what I do, and without you, I would have been forced to quit long ago. It is truly appreciated and keeps the bill collectors happy. Now more than ever, your continued support is vital.

If you wish to join the rank of donors but are not interested in Substack, you can still head over to Patreon and help a brother out.

Categories: Education