In Loco Parentis

March 24, 2022June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

Let’s start by addressing the gaslighting elephant in the room:

I have no interest in parenting your children.

I have a legal and ethical obligation to teach them, and to some degree train them, for an hour or so each day. I’m responsible for their safety and all that good stuff while they’re here. And yes, I end up caring about many of them and occasionally listening when they have something on their minds.

But subverting you or replacing you? Yeah, not so much.

First off, that’s way too much work for what I get paid. I’ve raised my kids, and while they’ve both turned out pretty well, that’s largely in spite of my parenting rather than because of it. Secondly, there’s too much else I’m supposed to accomplish during the limited time I have them. Honestly, even if I wanted to shatter their faith, change their gender, or make them feel horrible about being straight, white, and privileged, I’m having enough trouble getting them to check Google Classroom when they miss class or bring their books on silent reading days.

If we get those things under control, maybe then I’ll spend some time demonizing America or persuading them they might be way gayer than they think.

There are two things about which many of you are apparently all worked up which I suppose I should take partial “blame” for (three if you count my terrible abuse of prepositions just now). The first is that I do, in fact, sometimes use texts in class which disagree with your personal, heartfelt beliefs. The second is that despite my determination to avoid it, I periodically listen to your kids when they’re upset without immediately calling you or state authorities every time.

I’ll wait while you email Tucker Carlson.

The first issue has been well-covered in other blogs you don’t read and news stories from organizations you don’t trust. The short version is that I have way more faith in your kids than you apparently do, and hope they’ll one day be able to function in a complicated, diverse world. I have no interest in making them feel “guilty” for being white (that’s not really a thing, by the way), but I do believe they’ll be more successful personally and professionally if they have some understanding of why many people of color still seem so annoyed by so many things. I wouldn’t even know how to convert them to Islam or any other religion, but I am convinced they’ll be better able to navigate the world around them if they’ve been exposed to some of the basics of other cultures and faiths. (If I were a religious person, I’d also argue they’ll be better able to defend their own faith when they’ve gained insights into the beliefs of others.) I’m pretty sure I lack the ability to turn them gay or spark some previously-buried interest in gender transformation, but personally I’d rather they not self-harm, turn to drugs, or commit suicide based on a misplaced sense of guilt or shame over being whoever they are.

There’s a whole related argument to be had about whether or not it’s sometimes in the best interest of the child to undercut their parents’ extreme ideologies. (“Is it OK to teach the child of a misogynist that women have the same inherent value in the eyes of the law as men?” That sort of thing.) That’s a bigger, even more emotionally loaded question, and not relevant at the moment BECAUSE SCHOOLS ALREADY BEND OVER BACKWARDS (and sometimes forwards) TO AVOID DOING THIS. Having that discussion would require mutual respect and an acknowledgement of complexity that I don’t think we’ve established just yet – so we’ll set that aside for now and instead address the second issue I mentioned above – teachers who “counsel” kids in various ways.

*sigh*

I’ve written before about the impossibility of ignoring a child’s physical and emotional health, even if all we care about are standardized test scores. I’ve tried to explain some of the complexities of wooing teenagers to actually learn the stuff we’re tasked with teaching them, and even resorted to complaining a time or two about the way some parents approach their children’s teachers. It occurs to me, however, that I’ve yet to drop the sarcasm and frustration long enough to simply try to explain something I feel should already be obvious to everyone involved.

It’s good when your child talks to caring adults, even when they’re not you. Sometimes especially when they’re not you.

Taking this as a reflection on your parenting or a subversion of your values is – and I don’t know how else to say this – tragically insecure. My ex-wife (the mother of my now-adult children) and I didn’t always see eye-to-eye about things (hence the ‘ex’ part), but I still remember her reaction when we discovered our then-teenage daughter was sharing uncomfortable details about her home life during some pretty rough years with one of the adult leaders at her church. Rather than get upset, her mother told me how thankful she was that our daughter had found a trustworthy adult outside of the drama to help her process and navigate the feelings and fallout which resulted.

Why did she react that way? Because she cared more about the well-being of our child than she did her ego or mine. Because she recognized that while the relationship of parent and child is unique and sacred, there’s some truth to the whole “it takes a village” mindset as well.

When your kid talks to me about their personal problems, I don’t think about what a bad parent you must be – I think about how difficult it must be for them to navigate complicated situations and emotions at 14 or 15 years of age. I’ve been working with young people for over two decades, and I’ve figured out by now to take everything they say with a shaker or two of contextual salt. With all due respect, it’s not usually about you, or your rights, or your power. Sometimes it’s about them and their need to sort things out or handle their feelings in a non-destructive way.

Yes, if they tell me they’re being abused or harming themselves or going to hurt someone else, I have to call an 800 number and everything is going to suck from there forward no matter what happens next. Most of the time, though, that’s not what they say. Most of the time, they just need a fresh perspective on how to manage the stresses of school, or why their mom is always mad at them, or how come they can’t focus in class, or what is wrong with their math teacher who needs to stop tweakin’ and doin’ too much.

They don’t unload to me because I’m trying to be their parent; they unload to me because I’m not.

See, I don’t have to get them up in the morning when they’re being impossible. I don’t have to deal with the fallout of their poor relationship choices. I don’t have to feel guilty when they get in trouble at school or feel like anyone’s judging me for how they behave. I don’t have to feed them or clothe them or take care of them in any meaningful way beyond learning some reading, writing, and math, and secretly trying to turn them into transgender Muslim socialists.

(I’m kidding about that last part. No, seriously – I am. Dammit… there goes another email to Tucker Carlson.)

That gives me an advantage in some situations. I’m less threatening. I’m less invested. I care about them, and want what’s best for them, but they don’t “answer to me” in any long-term way. They’re not afraid of disappointing me in the same way they often are with you. It’s not a better relationship than you have with them; it’s a different relationship. One I take very seriously, even though it scares me to death. It’s not a responsibility I want, and the entire system is just waiting for me to make the wrong call in the moment and crush me if it can. But I’m also trying to get them through metaphors and appositives and a functional thesis statement, and sometimes they simply can’t focus on such things until we’ve done something about the rest of Maslow’s hierarchy.

I’m not competing with you. You want them to graduate? Me, too. You want them to cooperate better with authority (including yours)? Me, too. You want them to learn how to manage their emotions and find solutions to their struggles that don’t involve self-harm, sex-for-approval, or violence against others? Me, too. You want them to grow up to function in a complicated world? To do better than you did at their age? To be “happy,” whatever that means? Yeah, me too. You want them to share your worldview forever and never be challenged by other beliefs or opinions?

OK, on that one we may not be fully aligned. But still – 6 out of 7, am-I-right?

For what it’s worth, you’re always welcome to come sit in on class and see what we’re actually up to. You have full access to everything I assign to your child – it’s on Google Classroom or Canvas or whatever. I’m happy to discuss why I use the materials I do, as well as share what’s worked and what hasn’t and look for better options. I’m honestly rather excited when a parent wants to collaborate with me to figure out what might best serve their little darling. It happens far too rarely. Sorry if that’s more trouble than yelling at the school board or sharing the latest demagoguery by your elected leaders on Facebook, but it might be way more effective.

If, you know, we both want the same things for your child.

Relationships (Repost)

March 8, 2022June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Good morning. Welcome to our first back-to-school faculty meeting. We have several important items on the agenda today, then we’re going to fill the afternoon with pointless activities we found online because the district says we have to professionally develop until at least 3:00 whether we need it or not.

As some of you know, we had a bit of unpleasantness last spring which we’d like to avoid happening again this coming year. A teacher who is no longer with us crossed a few boundaries and before you knew it, we were leading off the local evening news – and unfortunately it wasn’t for our horrible test scores this time.

With that in mind, I’d like to draw your attention to the pink handout in front of you. These are some of this year’s revised guidelines for teacher-student interactions. I won’t read it all to you (it’s not PowerPoint), but I would like to point out a few highlights.

First and foremost, no touching. If you need to get a student’s attention, use your words. If you wish to encourage them… well, it’s best if you avoid that altogether. Some of you have fallen into a very bad habit of putting a hand on a shoulder or patting a student on the back as you walk by. You may intend this as an innocent gesture or believe that young people need some sort of positive physical contact in their lives, but the risk is simply too great.

This also applies to handshakes as they walk in the door, whether you’re in clear view of dozens of other faculty members or not. Also, several of you have asked about student-initiated contact. Sometimes when a student sees a favorite teacher from last year, particularly if they were an important presence in their world and they haven’t always had that sort of attention or concern from the adults who should be paying attention to them, that student will come up and try to side-hug or even fully embrace that teacher.

After the situation with Mr. Barnaby last year, I’m afraid this is absolutely unacceptable and may lead to dismissal. What’s that? Oh, the “alleged” situation. I don’t know why we have to call it that. Parents were angry on social media – what more proof of actual wrongdoing do we need?

Anyway, back to the pink handout, just below the cute cartoon with the teacher in the dungeon. What should you do if you recognize that a student is approaching you for a possible handshake or hug? Well, you have several options. One is to make eye contact, extend your palm forward, and firmly pronounce, “No! No No No!” If this doesn’t work, we recommend moving away at whatever pace necessary to avoid physical contact.

Question? Yes – breaking into a full run at the approach of any affectionate student is not only permitted, but ideal as long as you avoid contacting others in your effort to flee.

Don’t forget to keep shouting “No!” We’re teachers; we want them to learn from every situation. With that in mind we’ve also placed small, conveniently-sized mace sprayer-thingies in your mailboxes, although these should only be used if other efforts to avoid human connection are unsuccessful. They are NOT to be used as a “team-building” activity during your monthly PLC meetings, as occurred in one department last year. I’m pretty sure Mr. Barnaby was involved in that episode as well, come to think of it.

The second thing I’d like to point out are the communication guidelines we’ve instituted. Teachers should absolutely avoid connecting with students on social media in any form. We’d prefer you not communicate with the world around you at all – at least not about anything of substance. You may post recipes or pictures of student activities with all names and faces blurred out, but nothing personal, political, social, or humorous. No matter how benign, there’s a chance someone in the community will find it and erupt in faux outrage, convinced that if you’re sharing it on Facebook with a small group of select friends, you’re probably brainwashing minors with it all day, every day, because that’s what liberals do.

If you wish to have political opinions, prefer one sports team over another, promote American values, or like your grandbaby more than someone else’s grandbaby, maybe you should have thought of that before you became an educator. We’re not here to connect what we teach with real life or present ourselves as involved citizens. This is school.

New this year are the guidelines governing interactions within the school day. It’s come to our attention that a number of students have been approaching their teachers with issues not directly related to the curriculum. Sometimes these conversations seem benign enough – “Have you seen this movie?” or “Did you hear what happened to that celebrity, so-and-so?” Other times, though, they involve their personal lives, their hopes, fears, families, friends, relationships, goals, strengths, weaknesses, or other completely inappropriate topics for school.

If a firm stare and verbal warning doesn’t dissuade these inappropriate interpersonal interactions, you should immediately refer them to their school counselor, who will give them a career survey to complete until they forget what they were wanting to talk about. As with the “touching” issue above, feel free to run away screaming “No! No! No!” until the student is sufficiently re-engaged with that day’s assignment.

I suggest explaining to them how that day’s lesson correlates to state standards and maybe remind of them of how much better their life could potentially be in 10 – 20 years if they succeed in your class today. Whatever their personal issues, that should pretty much address them. Who doesn’t want to be successful a decade or two from now?

For anything more serious than movies, books, or music, call the 800-number we had carved into each of your desks over the summer. This will connect you with an overworked federal agency tasked with getting you out of these conversations. While technically this number is intended to be used for reporting suspicions of abuse or concerns about violence or suicidal behavior, we recommend using it every time a teenager brings up a recent breakup with their boyfriend, sounds worried about their ability to do well in school, expresses sadness or confusion related to difficult circumstances at home, or exhibits any other emotion not directly related to that day’s assignment.

State law mandates the agency investigate, which in turn automatically alerts local police, the fire department, child services, local media, the PTSA’s Facebook Group, the federal housing authority, and at least one associate producer working for Maury. Until they arrive, it is essential that you refuse to respond to or otherwise discuss with this student anything on their mind or hampering their ability to focus on school. You are NOT a trained counselor. It’s not as if simply listening and showing you care is going to do anything. I’m sure you mean well, but the risk is simply too great. (Remember Mr. Barnaby.)

The final section I’d like to discuss on your pink handout involves lesson planning. We’re going to start asking you to submit written lesson plans for approval at least one week in advance each week. It’s come to our attention that some of you – and I’ll confess that the English and Social Studies departments are particularly culpable here – have been making explicit or implied connections between subjects you cover in class and events going on in the community, the U.S., or the world today. This is simply unacceptable.

We are not here to manipulate students into thinking or feeling the same way we do about current events, and the only way to safely circumvent any gray area on this is to avoid doing anything intended to make them think or feel at all. Our legal counsel has suggested we leave thinking and feeling up to their parents, clergy, or therapists in order to shield the district from potential culpability. It’s best they not connect with you, that you don’t connect with them, and that nothing you say or do in class – however well-intentioned – connect with anything happening in their lives outside of school or the real world around them.

It’s simply not our place.

Alright, that’s it for the pink handout. Any questions?

Good. Let’s take a short break and when we come back, we’ll be looking at the green handout – “The Importance of Relationship in Learning.” They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care, amiright?

RELATED POST: Why Don’t You Just MAKE Them?

RELATED POST: The Elevator Is Broken

RELATED POST: Let’s Talk About Urinals

Teacher Evaluations (Hammers & Nails)

February 25, 2022June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

There’s a difference between caring how well you’re actually doing your job and caring how well you do on official evaluations. Ideally, the two at least overlap – like a Venn Diagram or pop and hip-hop. That’s not always a given, however. In practice, it’s often more like the relationship between reality and reality TV.

I know a teacher I’ll call Mr. Lutum. Mr. Lutum has been teaching forever – long enough that he began to fear he’d grown a bit stale. After some soul searching and a few months of crippling doubt and despair, he decided that if he were going to continue teaching, he at least needed a fresh start and a serious change of scenery.

He took a position in a high poverty, majority-minority district in the building people only work at until they have enough seniority to go elsewhere. Lutum figured he’d put his lofty rhetoric and progressive ideals to the test and see if he actually had the chops to work with kids who are nothing like himself – hopefully without becoming either cynical or patronizing. It was around this time I met Mr. Lutum at a local workshop and we began staying in touch – first just talking teacher talk, and eventually carrying on about other things.

We’re both in northern Indiana, and both of us moved here from other states. One thing we’d noticed is that in ultra-conservative states, the official solution to almost any problem is “punish them more.” If that doesn’t work, “punish them harder” or “punish those around them” pretty much exhausts the limits of legislative imaginations. None of that restorative-nurturing-touchy-feely nonsense here! All problems are nails – poverty, mental health, crime, poor schools, crumbling infrastructure, general malaise and despair. Fortunately, the state has a big hammer and uses it regularly and gleefully.

In their defense, they genuinely believe this demonstrates their concern over social ills and the like. It’s WJWD.

Local governments – right down to school boards and building administrators – have learned that, as middlemen of sorts, they have two basic options. They can become hammers themselves… or end up nails. The practical result of this is that in the local public schools, “accountability” and “high standards” have little to do with figuring out what works, and much to do with demonstrating that bent nails will not be tolerated. (Or straightened.)

The community is poor, families are broken, the economy is a mess, and relationships between parents and schools, citizens and police, business and society, are largely dysfunctional and periodically hostile. The state is criticized for not doing more to help local schools, who are in turn criticized for not doing more to revolutionize the lives and circumstances of each and every child within their boundaries via grammar worksheets and basic math skills. By way of showing their true commitment to educational progress, the schools shut down for standardized testing nearly every month for at least a few days.

In their defense, most schools are reacting to state mandates, threats, and demands. Because there are so many things they can’t control – home lives, poverty, culture, lack of interest, a global pandemic – they’ve doubled down on the things they can, which brings us to one of their favorite categories of nails – teachers in low-performing districts. “It’s time to accountability you with some high expectations, beehatch. It would take forever to get to know you and your classrooms, explore the dynamics of your interactions with kids or the systemic challenges you face which prevent you from accomplishing more. What we can do, however, is mandate this pretty impressive rubric to judge your classroom performance based on a 30-minute observation by someone desperate to stay a hammer twice a year.”

Teacher evaluation rubrics usually involve detailed sub-categories cascading for pages under ranking columns with names like “Excellent,” “Adequate,” “Could Be Better,” “My God You Suck,” and “Not Observed.” These are laid out in a giant spreadsheet or in an iPad app with descriptions of where a teacher might land on each measured characteristic.

For example, “Lesson Organization”:

EXCELLENT: Lesson is clearly laid out with pre-teaching or connection to previously learned materials, new content or skills, and formative or informative assessment to determine the extent to which students have mastered the new material. Instructor demonstrates effective differentiation and connects content and skills to students’ lives, learning styles, and future endeavors in meaningful ways throughout the lesson. Teacher has clear plans for students who excel quickly, who understand adequately, who struggle with the material, or who remain unaware or detached and implements each of these strategies with the appropriate students simultaneously.

ADEQUATE: Randomly insert the word “somewhat” into previous description so the distinction sounds quantitatively meaningful.

COULD BE BETTER: Replace “somewhat” with “rarely” but nod severely as you do to demonstrate thoughtful concern.

MY GOD YOU SUCK: Teacher is moderately conscious and may or may not have traces of drool working its way dramatically down their chin. There is little or no pre-teaching or connection to prior learning and teacher doesn’t appear to know students’ names, personal histories, family stories, emotional issues. Plus, I’d swear there were at least two kids playing on their phones which she totally ignored! Remediation consists primarily of discouraged sighs and instructions to “look, just give me something, OK?” before teacher crawls under desk and weeps in despair.

Here’s the other thing: it doesn’t matter if there’s a pandemic or if every teacher in the building is a Mr. Miyagi, Dewey Finn, or John Keating. “High expectations” means a percentage of them have to be scored harshly because “high expectations.” It’s like a college course being graded on a curve and there were going to be 3 ‘A’s, 10 ‘B’s, 12 ‘C’s, 10 ‘D’s, and 3 ‘F’s no matter how well or poorly individuals might actually do. Oh, and your grade for the entire course is based solely on page 3 of one of the 12 essays you’re required to do that semester.

Last year was Lutum’s first year at this particular school, and – as was somewhat expected – the learning curve was steep. It’s one thing to know the culture and dynamics of a building are quite different than what you’ve experienced before and another to manage those dynamics effectively. As the latest newcomer, he was an unknown quantity and thus had zero credibility in the eyes of most students. He was regularly challenged both directly and indirectly and had to up his game a bit with classroom management and personal interactions. Then came time for formal administrator observations and his first evaluation.

“I normally don’t care about that kind of thing,” he told me. “I’ve always believed that if I’m doing what I think is best for my kids, things like state tests or administrative paperwork either take care of themselves or simply have to be endured. I was a little uncomfortable this time, however, partly because I knew things weren’t going all that well in class, but also because my supervising administrator had shown little interest in getting to know me (or any of the other teachers) beyond periodically walking the halls to make sure we were on duty during passing periods and that our doors were locked during class.”

Lutum was scheduled to be observed during his 2nd period – a class of about 25 freshmen. Halfway through 1st period, an announcement came over the intercom to dismiss all band students for dress rehearsal in preparation to some contest they were attending that weekend. That meant that the 8 – 9 students most likely to participate (or to even know what was going on) were leaving. Normally, Lutum would have changed what he did in class that day to reflect the change of circumstances – try to keep it meaningful for those who remained – but the evaluation rubric doesn’t have a category for “what’s best for the kids actually present.” He’d have to plow ahead and get those boxes checked, students be damned.

It didn’t go well. He was marked down for things like insufficient connections to prior knowledge – despite the evaluating administrator arriving 10 minutes after the lesson started and the kids not actually having much in the way of applicable prior knowledge. Two kids were doing other things on their iPads which he couldn’t see but the administrator could, meaning he lacked “awareness.” Other than that, it was lots of blank stares and hostile body language. (Also, the kids didn’t seem that glad to be there either.)

He spent the next few weeks trying to assemble documentation to get him up to a score that prevented a required “plan of improvement” and vowed to do better in the Spring, knowing he’d not see or hear from his administrator before it was time to schedule the next evaluation.

Then the pandemic hit.

Evaluations last fall were based on his Canvas page, and again he was slammed for things like insufficient differentiation – meaning, I guess, that his prerecorded online lessons didn’t adapt throughout each period to the individual needs and responses of the students who weren’t doing them. He asked his evaluating administrator about this and he was at least sympathetic. “Hey, look – I have to be able to document it to give you ‘Adequate’, and I’m not seeing it. If you can show me something that qualifies, I’d love to change it.

Again he spent a few weeks trying to nudge the score up past “please don’t fire me” and began wondering why he gave up the easy gig in Michigan where everybody loved him and he had tenure.

Since Spring Break, Lutum has had 8 – 10 in person students each period (while still expected to keep up with virtual learning for the rest.) Last week was the first time this year he was scheduled to be observed in person. He made sure there were no extra band rehearsals or major sporting events scheduled and spent the two weeks beforehand trying to establish some classroom dynamics as students began wandering randomly back from virtual learning to in person school. He chose the period right before lunch when students were awake enough to participate but weren’t as hyper as they got after whatever fights broke out at lunch.

A few days beforehand, his evaluator emailed that he couldn’t make it that hour – could they do 1st period? Not wanting to seem insecure or unprepared, Lutum agreed.

The day before the visit, the building principal came on the intercom and announced that tardies were out of control and that teachers were to lock their doors when the bell rang – no exceptions. Those students would report to detention for the rest of the period. (1st period, unsurprisingly, has more tardies than any other hour.) That announcement was followed by a list of all the busses running late that day. There were always at least 3 – 4; that day Mr. Lutum estimates it was more like 7.

It had been a few weeks since they’d covered “irony” in class, but maybe that should have been the lesson he’d prepared for observations. Once again, he wasn’t going to have enough students to demonstrate anything on the checklist. Well, maybe Brittney. She’s always there early. Nice kid. Clueless, of course, but enthusiastic. Yeah, allusions and metaphors will go great with just her. The breakout groups activity would be particularly impressive, and her first chance to be group leader. Of herself.

He could have tried to reschedule, but why? Hammers need nails. They have no use for screws, widgets, duct tape, or clamps. At some point the nail has to either stop trying to pull away and accept its fate or figure out how to become a hammer – something Mr. Lutum was unwilling to do.

“Bring it on,” he told me. “I figure no one else is lined up begging for this job. Let’s get the part over with so I can get back to trying to figure out how to help the kids actually in front of me, and if they want to start a paperwork trail to fire me, so be it.”

I guess a single nail sticking up does look a bit like a middle finger. And I’m OK with that.

Postscript: It went fine. Ludum had 5 kids show up and found out later when they saw an administrator in the room most had assumed they were in trouble of some sort. They didn’t have great answers but they upped their game considerably and tried to look attentive (and not like nails). He’d forgotten to tell them what was happening that day and had no idea they’d be panicked by a principal visit. Turns out he’s still learning a few things about his new school.

RELATED POST: Teacher Tired

Very Fine People On Both Sides

January 20, 2022June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Indiana’s SB 167 is on hold, although its House equivalent 1134 is still working its way through the system. Senator Scott Baldwin jumped the gun a bit in the standard GOP playbook for justifying horrifying policies:

1) Explicitly reject and condemn the horrifying policy.

2) Shift the focus to how unfair and hurtful it is to be accused of supporting the horrifying policy.

3) Insist that your opponents are actually the ones doing the horrifying policy… in reverse!

4) Downplay just how horrifying the policy actually is (i.e., muddy the waters).

5) Declare the issue closed because you’re tired of rehashing the issue and why can’t they find something else to harp on (clearly they don’t have useful policies of their own)!

6) Embrace the horrifying policy while pointing out that at least it’s nothing like this OTHER horrifying policy, which you do absolutely reject and condemn.

7) Repeat with the new policy.

In terms of censoring history and literature in public schools, the GOP is still largely on Step #2 – the “we are not banning books, we’re just protecting children from ideas we find uncomfortable!” stage. Baldwin got all excited and jumped right to Step #4: “What’s wrong with being a Nazi?”, which as we all know isn’t supposed to happen until about 75 minutes into Swing Kids.

The kerfuffle, however, has somewhat detracted from some of the underlying problems with the legislation – not just SB 167, but all similar bills demanding that educators simply provide students with a list of objective facts and definitions and avoid anything smacking of evaluations or judgments involving those facts.

That’s not education. That’s reciting definitions (or dates, or names, etc.)

Naughty Nazis

Yes, the Nazis were bad. But adding an “unless you’re talking about the Nazis” provision to the bill doesn’t solve anything. Wrestling with the relative “good” and “bad” of various economic systems, political beliefs, lifestyles, attitudes, behaviors, and the like, is one of the primary functions of secondary education. Yes, we’d like to see our students become employable. Yes, we aspire to see them happy and personally fulfilled. But somewhere in the mix is this crazy hope that they’ll be informed, rational citizens, capable of weighing complex ideas and understanding multiple points of view.

Unlike, for example, the folks pushing this legislation.

Accomplishing this requires more than listing a few terms and definitions or reciting a watered-down historical record. It requires wrestling with ideas – including many of the ideas Republicans are actively trying to prohibit.

For example, let’s assume Hitler was a very bad man and everything the Nazis stood for was abhorrent. It’s still worth trying to understand why so many Germans (and others) went along with it. How do basically decent people rationalize each new horrible step and still feel pretty good about themselves? It’s also worth recognizing that many men proudly sporting swastikas went home to their families each night, spoke kindly to their wives, and played with their children.

Yes, Nazis were bad. (I’d go so far as to say VERY bad.) But they weren’t cartoon characters. They were complex humans, and doing right by history means wrestling with that fact a bit if we’re serious about not doing it again. That doesn’t mean I’m coming out in support of the Nazis, but it does mean I might be asking a few provocative questions along the way. Unless, of course, I know there are political operatives out there just waiting for an excuse to come after me and my family.

In that case, I’ll probably stick with a list of definitions and dates.

Staying Neutral-ism

How about some other “-isms” GOP legislators are worried about teachers embracing or criticizing? Senator Baldwin mentioned several economic systems on which teachers should avoid expressing any sort of “position.” Surely that’s a reasonable expectation…?

I suppose I could hand my kids a graphic organizer with some basic definitions for them to memorize:

“Communism”: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
“Capitalism”: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
“Mercantilism”: the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.
“Socialism”: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

OK, kids – quiz this Friday!

The problem with this approach is that it’s all but completely useless. There are major, historically documented problems with Communism when attempted on a large scale – problems worth discussing and understanding. The same goes for Mercantilism – you can hardly claim to “understand” it unless you recognize and appreciate its historical baggage. I’m not interested in demonizing either one; in specific circumstances, one or the other may prove beneficial. But trying to feign “neutrality” forces me to distort reality in ways I’m neither willing nor talented enough to do.

As to Capitalism and Socialism, such stripped-down definitions are almost dishonest. Like “Christianity,” “Breakfast,” or “Alternative Rock,” these broad classifications manifest themselves in dramatically different ways across time and place.

Raw Capitalism minus any government restraints or social protections is brutal. Pure Socialism is intended to be a transitional stage towards Communism. You’d be hard-pressed to find a functioning modern nation claiming to be either one without substantial mixing in of the other in order to function effectively. Neither Capitalism or Socialism is an objective absolute; they represent points on a sliding scale with infinite variations between the extremes. Understanding them (or any other economic “-isms”) requires far more than memorizing a “You Have Two Cows…” chart.

Grasping the differences means discussing pros and cons, both theoretically and historically. It means diving into things many consider “good” (more people able to meet their basic needs and access essential goods and services) and others most would label “bad” (discouraging innovation, encouraging corruption, or punishing success). Teachers should avoid deifying or condemning viewpoints or systems categorically, but I’ve often made value statements about various systems by way of elaboration or example, or simply to provoke and challenge my kids.

That’s part of what education should be. It’s not a defect; it’s a feature.

Not Slavery Again

Finally, we have to address the topic Republicans are most worked up about – the thing they wish we’d just forget about and pretend it was so long ago it couldn’t possibly matter.

No, not January 6th, 2021. The other one.

I’m talking about how we address slavery in the American south. (You know – that historical oddity that has absolutely no impact on our nation or its inhabitants today because we’re all SO over it?)

There’s no “good” version of slavery – no “positives” to being a slave. But there were many different types of slavery practiced. There were regional variations, and a wide range of “good” and “bad” when it came to masters. What you did and how you were treated could vary widely, and not all slaves reacted the same way to the same circumstances. It’s a genuinely complicated issue in some ways, and one we must be willing to wrestle with honestly if we’re serious about real progress.

Frederick Douglass went to great lengths to argue that while slavery was obviously bad for the slave, it corrupted and destroyed the slaveowner as well. George Fitzhugh argued that “wage slavery” in the north was in many ways far worse than chattel slavery in the south. William Lloyd Garrison demanded complete equality for blacks and condemned the U.S. Constitution for allowing slavery in the first place, while more moderate voices suggested colonizing freedmen in Liberia, Africa. Even Abraham Lincoln was not certain black folks and white folks were equal in every way or would ever live together comfortably.

Can I share this information without taking sides? Probably. But can I teach it? Can I help my kids in a developmentally appropriate way to wrestle with the ideas, to understand even those points of view they don’t like, or stretch themselves to embrace complexities that defy easy answers – all without saying or doing anything which taken out of context might constitute promoting one ideology over another? Probably not.

Heck, I can’t even accurately identify the date beyond which slavery no longer impacted the America in which we live today. The institution ended (at least legally) in 1865 or so, but surely it’s safe to suggest its impact lingered through at least… 1877? 1900? 1954? 1964? 2008? That’s where I hit a serious wall with current GOP dogma.

If my father raped your mother, burned down your home, and took everything your father owned, all before you were born, can you reasonably claim that’s in some way impacted how you were brought up compared to me? I didn’t do it – but is it at least possible I benefited from all that extra wealth, while you struggled from having so little? Is it at least worth considering that the emotional dynamics in both of our families might be impacted even a generation later by the relationship between our fathers?

While I wouldn’t use such a loaded analogy in class, it’s becoming literally illegal in many red states to even proffer the idea for analysis or debate. The language of bills like those being considered in Indiana (and already passed in other states) puts a premium on avoiding anything that might make little white kids uncomfortable with their past or the ways in which it shapes their present. I, on the other hand, see little point to ANY history that doesn’t make us at least a LITTLE uncomfortable with who we are and what we believe about ourselves.

Honestly, I thought that was the whole point.

Letters of the Law

The current wave of “anti-CRT” legislation, whatever its specific phrasing or disclaimers, is being pushed through disinformation and fear-mongering. Proponents can argue the specifics of the bills themselves, but they can’t reasonably deny that the entire point is to stoke straight white Protestant paranoia with emotionalism and intentional distortions.

When you threaten someone at gunpoint, it’s no defense to claim afterward that the gun might not actually be loaded, or that the bullets were actually intended to be used in very different situations. The gun waving is generally enough to get what you want. To act all hurt that anyone thought there were bullets involved is disingenuous… and a tad pathetic. But that’s what legislators are doing in reaction to criticisms of these bills.

There are already stories of districts and administrators scrambling to remove anything that might land them in the news or in court – from MLK to Anne Frank to the Stonewall Riots. Right-wing groups are offering financial “bounties” for anyone “catching” teachers saying or doing anything they can portray as violating these new restrictions, while the politicians who passed the laws with THESE EXACT GOALS in mind do their best to sound shocked that anyone could possibly blame them for working so hard to make it happen.

We should absolutely debate what’s appropriate in the classroom. Parents should be welcomed and involved and free to ask or challenge anything they like. And teachers who step past their role of challenging and educating children and slip into indoctrination or harassment should certainly be disciplined – perhaps even dismissed.

But trying to legislate what thoughts students and teachers are allowed to discuss, or micromanage every possible scenario in every possible classroom, at best stifles a meaningful education for the very students the GOP claims to be protecting (not to mention driving even more educators out of the profession and burning up tax dollars in the courts). At worst, it’s leading us towards an Orwellian sort of ugliness and bringing us one step closer to losing forever the core values and beliefs that made the U.S. such a nifty idea to begin with.