Let's look at both sides now

 Let’s look at both sides now

 

We have a new phenomenon going on in our schools.   The idea is that when any idea is presented, it is important to look at both sides of the issue.   At first blush that looks like a good thing.    After all, one of the major objectives of education is to teach our children to consider both sides of an issue before deciding on their position.

However, there is a serious flaw in this approach.   In this approach, every opinion is treated as equally valid, including those including falsehoods masquerading as objective fact.   It also includes treating the opinions of liars and those unqualified to have an opinion as equal to those who are trained experts in the field.

The issue is NOT that everyone is entitled to an opinion the issue is that in “bothsideism” all opinions have to be treated as equally valid.  And this is not the case.

So for example, if children were studying space, views that the earth is flat and not a sphere would need to be treated equally and given equal time and attention as those of scientists.   There is a view that a woman’s menstrual cycle can be regulated with jade quartz eggs.   In districts that require “bothsideism”, these views must get equal time and attention in biology classes.  This past October, educators in Southlake, Texas were told if they had a book on the Holocaust in their classroom library, they would also have to have one that had an “opposing” perspective, i.e. the Holocaust never happened.   In Indiana, a state senator is insisting that the teaching of history needs to be impartial.  Teaching about  history needed to be taught from the perspective of all sides and not take a position as to which side might be right or wrong.  Good or bad reasons to go to war are not categorized as such, all reasons are neutral.

Absolutely, children need to be taught multiple positions on all issues so they can intelligently come to their own views as to what is right and what is wrong.  But when we give equal credence to information that is without evidence we are teaching children that it is ok to accept opinion as equal to fact.

Russia invaded Ukraine; that is a fact.  The Holocaust happened, that is a fact.  The earth is a sphere; that is a fact.  There is no equivalency sign between fact and opinion.  A vital part of education is to teach children the difference.  

And you thought the kids were safe?

 And you thought the kids were safe?

 

Well over 1,000 cases of child abuse by Head Start center staff have been reported in a new investigation of Head Start programs. These programs provide early childhood education to children from low-income families.    The report found that 1 in 4 recipients of Head Start grants has incidents of child abuse, lack of supervision or release of a child to an unauthorized person.  

There was an instance of a child being left alone on a vehicle long enough for the child to develop frostbite.  There were teachers who used demeaning nicknames including “mustache girl” and “chancho” which is “pig” in Spanish.  A teacher was reported to have hit a student with a stick.

More than 450 of the incidents were some form of child abuse including hitting children with implements, shaking children and slapping them in the face.   Verbal and emotional abuse were also found.   Prohibited disciplinary measures such as taping a child’s mouth shut, binding a child to a chair and using food or toilet training to punish or demean.

Head Start is under the authority of The Administration for Children and Families (ACF).   When the report came to light ACF said that Head Start programs are “extraordinarily safe” and that more than 99% of children are not affected by a safety incident.  As part of the corrective action, grantees improved administration procedures and staff training.  Disciplinary actions were also taken.  In 75% of the cases of abuse, staff involved were fired or resigned.  The report does not indicate what happened to the other 25% that neither resigned or were fired.

One of the outcomes of this investigation is that the ACF is going to implement more serious consequences for programs that fail to report abuse or incidents resulting from lack of supervision.

One of the most troubled programs that had the most instances of multiple violations is located in Prince George’s County in Maryland.  The program was operated by the school system and it was required to refund $6.4 million after a federal review found that teachers in the program used corporal punishment and humiliated children, and the school system had taken no steps to correct the problem.  

In one instance, a teacher forced a 3-year old to mop up his own urine in front of the class- then texted the photo to his mother with the comment, “LOL, he did the deed but he worked the mop tho!”    In another case, a 5-year-old left the center and walker home.  Staff did not notice his absence.

These kids are very young.   Who is keeping them safe?  Government officials don’t seem to be doing it.

When is a suspension, not a suspension?

 When is a suspension, not a suspension?

The call comes in around mid-morning.  Can you come to school immediately to pick up your child?   He is having some serious issues with his behavior and we really don’t want to suspend him.   You get to school and your child is not ill; he isn’t even jumping up and down or causing a problem.  He is sitting peacefully in the principal’s outer office, quietly waiting for you.  Your son has ADHD and sometimes he can think better if he uses a fidget or does something else to move his hands.   The teacher had asked the children to sit quietly while she read a story to them.  Sitting quietly did not include playing with a fidget.  Your son wouldn’t stop the fidget thing.  The teacher wasn’t giving an inch since the other kids could sit quietly. 

Schools are under great pressure to cut down on suspensions since kids don’t learn when they are home and not in school.  These “come get your child” calls are known as informal removal.   Federal and state law require that if a child with a disability exhibits a behavior that warrants suspension, a meeting must be held to determine if that behavior is a manifestation of the disability.  If it is, the school needs to fix the situation, not suspend the child.

But if a school asks you to take your child home and you do, there is no record of that, no manifestation hearing, and no changes to the school routine.  Additionally, there won’t be that pesky “10-day suspension” requirement when the appropriateness of the program needs to be examined as a contributing factor in all those suspensions.

The U.S. Office of Education is getting wise to the practice.  It is a de facto denial of education that evades the accountability of the law.  Since the pandemic the instances of these informal removals have increased dramatically.  In July the US Office of Education issued guidance on how this process has to work.  Parents are reporting being called repeatedly after only an hour or so into the school day.  These removals aren’t recorded so there is no way to account for how often they are really happening.  Students of color with disabilities appear to be more often the target.   Staff shortages are accelerating the calls particularly to parents who may not know their rights and just go along with the school’s request.  The guidance from the US Office of Education makes it clear that students who are informally removed have the same rights as kids who are suspended.   Only thing is you have to know your child’s rights to protect those rights.  Just looks a lot like suspension but the school says it isn’t.

 

 

Do Parents have the right?

 Do Parents have the right?

 

Montgomery County in Maryland has put guidelines into place that directs all staff members to respect students’ gender identities and pronouns, protect their privacy in terms of disclosing their pronouns and identities to other students and their families, and support them if the student doesn’t feel safe at home.   The guidelines also require all trans and nonbinary students to be treated on a case-by -case basis and the student’s individualized needs and safety be taken into account.

Some parents in the district felt that this policy usurped their rights as parents.  So like all good Americans they sued.  The parents’ suit contended that the district’s policy was specifically designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children’s care , health, education and future.  

This was the first case to come to court in the culture wars going on across the country regarding the rights of students who are trans or nonbinary.  Students who are LBGTQ are also being challenged.  In some districts the rights of these students are being taken away and in other jurisdictions those rights are being protected. 

Montgomery County Public Schools has staked a policy that strives to protect those rights.  In issuing his decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm last month tossed out the lawsuit. He ruled that the policy did not violate the parents’ Constitutional rights.  His opinion validated both the guidelines and the way they are framed.  He stated, “the guidelines do not aim to exclude parents, but rather anticipate and encourage family involvement in establishing a gender-support plan”.  He further wrote that they create a support system so that the students feel safe in school. 

Parents didn’t see it that way and felt the policy allowed students to transition to a different gender identity at school without parental permission or notice.  Parents felt the policy encouraged school staff to enable such transitions.

The judge disagreed.  This was the first of this kind of lawsuit to have a hearing and a decision.  There are at least a half-dozen cases pending across the country challenging school policies on gender support or not.  Cases are challenging policy on both sides of the issue.

School districts are acting in loco parentis and the issue is who has the right to protect kids AND what does that protection look like?