Whose Kid Is It Anyway?

Whose kid is it anyway?

There are several new books on the market purporting to teach educators how to partner with parents.   When I look through these books I see a common theme.   It is simple We super smart educators know what needs to happen for our school children and you, uninformed parents, need to get on board.   Since you evidently are not doing so voluntarily, these books will give educators the skills to trick you into being true believers.

Don’t get me wrong.   I think that well-trained educators have much information that will benefit parents in their responsibility to make sure their children get an appropriate education.  But you will notice that I believe it is ultimately the parents who make the appropriate decisions regarding their children’s education.  Unfortunately, it seems that too often educators think working with parents is the art of keeping them from sticking their noses into things that ARE properly their business.

I am well aware that some parents have not a clue what the best decisions are for their kids.   I also realize that a very small minority of parents don’t really care all that much.  Certainly in these instances educators can inform parents and in the worst cases even leap into the breech.  But on the whole, parents are the people who should be making the final decisions based on information from educational experts and other professionals.

Why is that.  First of all, children will belong to their parents until the parents breathe their last.  So if the grown children do not succeed in life, it is often the parents who will pick up the pieces or be the people of last support.  Secondly, parents probably know their children better than anyone.  If they have multiple children, parents can tell you which one is self-motivated and which one not so much.  They can tell educators what things each child thinks is a reward.  Who would like something special to eat and who would like time to read.  Too often, teachers presume that what is rewarding for one child is also rewarding for another. They can also inform teachers about stressors in the child's life.  Thirdly, teachers will only be responsible for this child for a year or so.   Parents are responsible forever.  I think of educators as part-time employers while parents are full time almost forever.

Educators will sometime use the grammar of power in speaking to parents.  They will predict a dire future for the child if the parent does not follow the educator’s lead.  And then there is the fact that educators keep changing their minds.  One year it is test scores; the next year it is phonics.   Whatever the current metric is, parents are led to believe there will significant consequences if the child is not successful in the current calculus.  It is like repeatedly crying fire in a crowded room.

So what should parents and educators do?   Parents need to lean in.  Get themselves educated about just what their child’s capabilities are, not what they had dreamed they would be.   Next, find out what possible options there are for future careers, knowing full well that many of the jobs today's kids will have as adults don’t even exist right now.  Do as much investigating and research as you would do if you were buying a new flat screen or automobile.

Educators need to prepare similarly.  But educators need to prepare as advisors to the decision makers.  Educators should not see themselves in the role of decision maker.   They are not putting down their hard-earned money for that flat screen; that investment belongs to the parents.

On a good day, educators know a lot of some very important stuff when it comes to a child’s education.  Parents know a lot of other stuff about that child as well.  Smart educators try to learn as much as they can from parents, because the more the educator knows the better job he or she can do.  Parental information can make rock stars of teachers.

Oh, and one more thing educators, stop being so patronizing, it is not becoming.

Endrew: Victory or Defeat

Endrew:  Victory or Defeat

In an unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a merely “more than de minimis” academic growth would not meet the requirement of a free, appropriate education (FAPE) for children with disabilities as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).   Some courts, specifically the 10^th Circuit, had ruled otherwise.  

On the surface this appears to be news that all advocates for children with disabilities could cheer.  Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, said that the “de minimis” standard could hardly be said to be any education at all.  Unfortunately, when Judge Gorsuch (yes, the same Judge Gorsuch that was just elevated to the Supreme Court) said in the opinion of the 10^th Circuit that “merely” de minimis would be enough, panic spread throughout the advocate world.  The Endrew decision changes that.    There are basically three reactions to this ruling.

Advocates for children with disabilities are basically cheering the ruling.  Ever since the Rowley decision there has been disagreement on “how low can you go” in student achievement and still be considered to be delivering an appropriate education for a child.  So, the unanimous answer of not de minimis is good. 

But the Endrew decision went on to further describe what should be expected for children with disabilities who were fully integrated in a general education classroom and for those who were not.  For those fully integrated, Roberts said these children by virtue of their full integration should be expected to get passing grades and to be able to advance from grade to grade.  But he recognized that for those children not fully integrated, advancement from grade to grade might not be a reasonable expectation.  The opinion went on to state, that for those children the IEP needed to be “appropriately ambitious” with “challenging objectives”.   How very reasonable!   How terribly devastating!  For the first time, a judicial review has recognized that children have differing abilities and, therefore, should have differing expectations.   Squirrels are expected to climb trees; fish are expected to swim.  There are many among the special ed community who want squirrels to swim and fish to swing from tree branches.   The Court's decision, in my view, both recognizes and respects differences.  More importantly, there is now a standard for fully integrating kids in a general classroom- they should be able to advance from grade to grade and get passing grades.   Advocates can use this standard to avoid just dumping kids into general ed where the curriculum may not be appropriate to their needs.

A third reaction to the ruling reflects the disappointment of the Endrew’s parents.  It was their hope that the Court would set a standard that required “appropriate” to mean “to achieve academic success, attain self-sufficiency, and contribute to society.”  These are wonderful goals for all kids, with or without disabilities.  Problem is neither schools nor families can deliver perfection for all kids.   So while we should continue to shoot for the moon, we need to be grateful that the stars are within reach.

This new standard does not totally please anyone.  That must mean it is pretty good.

Never Say What You Mean

Never say what you mean

Over the years, I have learned that politics is the art of reframing something so what you are doing to looks like just the opposite of what you are doing.

That is what is happening now in the Maryland State Legislature.  The piece of legislation called, “Protect Our Schools” should, if candor were a priority, be called “Feds, keep your hands off Maryland.”

Here is the background.   Trump and his newly minted Ed Secretary, DeVos, are clearly on the record in favor of charter schools and vouchers.  Maryland’s Governor is also a Republican and has made no secret of his favor for both of these ways to change public schools.  With a Republican in the White House and with DeVos as Secretary, there is a real chance these changes could come to Maryland.

The members of the Maryland Legislature are overwhelmingly Democrats.  They are also very much aligned with the Maryland State Teachers’ Union.  The teachers’ union sees charter schools and vouchers as taking money away from public schools where they do their work.  Protect our Schools is a bill that will not allow the State Board of Education to use either vouchers or the creation of charter schools as a solution for a failing school.  The legislation also makes it a bit more difficult for a school to be defined as failing by requiring that test scores only count as 65% of the metric rather than 75%.

The teams on either side of the issue are lining up.  The president of the State Board is opposed to the legislation because he says that education policy decisions should be independent and politics kept out.  But then he was recently appointed by Hogan so it is no surprise that he agrees with the Governor. No politics there.

Trump and DeVos advocate vouchers as a way to allow more low-income students to attend private schools.  Great idea!   Let’s give low-income folks $4,000 vouchers to attend $25,000 schools.  What vouchers wind up being is a discount coupon for the people who could already afford 20K for their kids to go to a private school.  If you can’t afford the purchase price, a roughly 5% off voucher is not going to open the door to the other 95% of the cost.

The center of the debate does not have all that much to do with who has the educational power to control public schools.  It is all about how well a Democratically controlled legislature can play defense against a Republican Governor supported by a Republican federal administration.

When looking at the sides in this fight, it is best to see who has which dogs in the hunt.  The legislature, the teachers’ union and to some extent the Superintendent’s organization all back the bill.  Governor Hogan and his Republican appointees are happy to find something they can agree with the federal administration on since if they go too far down that conservative road, they are not likely to be reelected in overwhelming blue Maryland. 

Republicans are telling us that families want to hold their children to high academic standards to carry out DeVos’ vision for education in our country. They also talk about jeopardizing federal funding.   Democrats tell us the legislature has the responsibility to step in on behalf of those same constituents who want to protect our public schools.

The language is very high and mighty but the fighting is down and dirty.  Hogan will veto and the legislature will probably override and no one will say what they really mean.