Do teachers have a point?

Do Teachers Unions Have a Point?

 

Teachers unions have come out strongly against schools opening up again for in-school learning, even part time in some sort of hybrid approach.   A recent newspaper article quoted the superintendent for Catholic education in the Baltimore region as saying that Catholic schools would open full time because it was in the best interest of the students.

The teachers’ unions are saying that schools are not safe for teachers.   These concerns need to be considered in light of the fact that the teachers in the unions teach in public schools not private ones, whether parochial or private non-sectarian.   However, it is interesting to note that the unions are mainly addressing concerns about teacher safety not about best interests of kids.

Articles about health care professionals who have continually gone into the hospitals and other medical facilities have repeatedly said they do so because that is what they signed up to do- take care of the sick.  And they understand that in doing so they are putting themselves at risk.

Teachers have signed up to provide an education for children.   Granted they did not sign up to put themselves at a health risk but they did sign up to teach.   Everyone knows that online learning is an oxymoron.   Many kids don’t have the facilities to get online and most people agree there was very little learning that was occurring.  The American Pediatric Association has said that kids are more damaged by not being in-school than the risk to their health in school, providing health care measures are taken. 

The question becomes just how great is the health risk to teachers who would return part-time to a school building?   As of this writing, Maryland has had 3493 people die of the Covid 19 virus.   Of that number 57% were the elderly who were in nursing homes.  It is probably fair to assume that an individual in a nursing home had some pre-existing medical condition that caused them to need a nursing home even before the virus.  That means 1493 people have died in Maryland from the virus who were not already in compromised health in a nursing home.   

These numbers beg the question of how great is the risk to classroom teachers?  Being sick with the virus ranges from bad to really  bad.   No one wants that for teachers, for kids or for any one.  

Teaching online takes a lot less time than being in a classroom.  A chunk of the learning is canned and requires little to no preparation.   Do teachers really have a legitimate health risk if they go into a school building part-time?  How many of those same teachers have traveled or vacationed in another higher risk state this summer?  Do teachers’ unions have a point?   Or are their members less committed to their commitment to teach than are health care workers to their commitment to keep us well.  It’s a good question.

Whose Fault is it?

Whose fault is it?

 

If a child goes to school and contracts the COVID19 virus, who is to blame?   The US is one of the most litigious countries in the world.  We sue people for hot coffee.

At the present time the Congress is considering federal law to protect businesses from liability if a person can trace the contraction of the virus back to a particular business.  Congress is seriously considering that.

As Trump presses for children to return to school, Boards of Education and local superintendents are very concerned that that there will be an onslaught of special education litigation either for contracting the virus directly or for the failure of schools to provide compensatory education for the time the schools have been on distance learning.  Everyone pretty much concedes that distance learning negatively impacts children with disabilities more profoundly than it does plain kids.

U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has said that there would be no “waiver authority for any of the core tenets of the IDEA”.   Disability advocates have insisted that no waivers should be warranted because of Covid.  Advocates are saying that this is just an excuse for school systems to get out of providing services to kids.  They insist that as of this time there is no indication that the so-called outpouring of litigation has happened at all.  Advocates acknowledge that children with disabilities have suffered under distance learning.  They also say that school districts have not even begun to try to level the playing field for children with disabilities.

On the other hand, the School Superintendents Association, the National School Boards Association and the Association of Educational Services Agencies have insisted they need protection.  They insist that their energy needs to go towards providing instruction not toward fending off lawsuits.  The groups have not said how long they would like these protections to last.

The reality is that these same organizations have been saying for over 45 years!  that providing a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities is too heavy a lift.  In fact at the signing of EHA 94-142, President Ford said he was signing the bill into law but doubted it could be achieved.

The latest proposal from the Senate for Covid relief does include liability protection for businesses and schools.  So the question is- is this a legitimate concern or just another way to wiggle free of the responsibility to provide FAPE.  As the old saying goes, “it is an ill wind that doesn’t blow somebody some good”.

The sand is moving through the hourglass

The Sand is moving through the hourglass

 

 

Just about everyone agrees, distance learning is a lot more distance than it is learning.   On the other hand, everyone wants to be safe and not catch the virus or maybe worse pass it on to a loved one.

Trump has insisted that every child needs to go back to school.   Really there are good reasons for this insistence, and they are not all about the economy although there is that.

It is important to review the cost to the kids besides the risk of catching the virus.   First of all, children with disabilities are entitled to a free, and appropriate education (FAPE) until they are 21.   In Maryland that means to the end of the school year in which they the child turns 21.   So far, kids have missed a full quarter of in-school learning.   Based on recent announcements, the larger public school systems in Maryland are extending online learning for at least another semester, maybe longer.   So that brings us to at least three-fourths of a school year with reduced learning.   That is 7-8 months of sand through that hourglass.   No one has suggested extending the time of entitlement by that amount of time.  To my knowledge, the idea is not even on anyone’s radar.   The best we are getting is that there will be more live teaching and less canned teaching.

Let’s look at the costs to children.   Young children are missing out on the basic foundations of academic learning, those old-fashioned reading, writing and arithmetic.  These skills form the backbone on which all other learning is connected.   Children who miss out on this early learning will have all other future learning impacted.   Teachers will freely tell you they can’t do as good a job online as in the classroom.   Parents (with the exception of those who are trained teachers) do not know how to teach and reteach the skills.   If the foundation is not sturdy, the house will not be strong.

Adults with disabilities are unemployed at a higher rate than plain adults and most frequently underemployed.   One of the major activities that mitigate against this event is the work placement opportunities of any good transition program.  When high school students miss these opportunities they will be less prepared for getting a job and much more likely to face long-term unemployment that will impact the rest of their lives.

School has many values for children with disabilities.  One of the most important is the development of social emotional skills.   Through activities with other kids they learn the give and take of working in groups. Particularly for students on the autism spectrum, social skills development is a must have.   They also learn to be resilient, one of the most important skills for successful adults.

 

The calculus of whether or not a family thinks it is safe for a child to return to school is complex and not easy.  Each family must measure its own risk tolerance.  However, in calculating that risk, it is important for families to consider the other risks that cannot be seen- deficits in basic skills, reduced time of education entitlement, limited work training and loss of social emotional growth.   These are risks as well and need to be considered on one side of the equation.

So What are you going to do

So, what are you going to do?

 

The President has decreed that all students need to be back in school full time this coming fall.   He has even threatened to pull education funding if schools don’t comply.   Putting aside the fact that the President has no authority whatsoever regarding the opening of schools and that the money for education is appropriated by Congress so he can’t pull that either, there are some serious decisions regarding the return to school that need to be made by local authorities.

In the United States, unlike some other countries, the control of schools is a state and local affair.  Each governor and local school board needs to decide what the opening of school will look like in the next month or so.  Each family will need to decide if it feels safe to allow the children to return to school buildings.  The gains versus the losses need to be carefully considered.

In Maryland, if your school district is Garrett County, there aren’t a lot of issues  The county only has a total of about 27 cases.  So schools can probably re-open there.  But if you are in one of the metro areas, D.C. or the Baltimore metro area, the instances of the disease are much higher.

Distance learning has significant costs.   Children are losing their social connections.  There is evidence of serious emotional issues because of the continued isolation.   Learning is dramatically depressed.   Many distance learning lessons are boring and kids are just walking away from the technology.  Teachers are not as easily available to re-teach and help kids.

There are also costs to being in the school building.   The most obvious is the possible risk to health.  How safe are the buildings for students and staff?   How safe is the bus ride to school.   The American Pediatric Association has indicated that in many instances the risk to emotional health and learning is greater than the health risk.  Young people are not as likely to get the virus and when they do, they get well.  This situation may be different for their teachers.

Then there are the economic costs.   Salaries and benefits are being paid to public school teachers at the in-school rate.   But many teachers have made it clear that distance learning does not begin to require the level of time investment that in the building teaching does.   Yet teachers and unions would be highly offended were they asked to take a commensurate cut in pay.

There are also expanded economic costs.  Like it or not, one of the bigger functions of school is universal  child care.   As the economy opens up who is going to care for the children if they are not back in school?   The economic cost of the pandemic has already hit women much harder than men.   If school buildings remain closed most likely it is the women who will stay home to do child care.  

It has been several months since the shut-down.   We are not all that further along in figuring out how to manage so much.

Every school system, every school, every family is going to need to do a very concerted cost-benefit analysis and decide “whatcha gonna do”

 

 

No One Will Save Us But Ourselves

No One will Save us but ourselves

 

Effective on July 1, Maryland will have a special education ombudsman assigned to the office of the State Attorney General.  Isn’t that a great thing!  Now families with concerns about failure of schools to provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) will have some place to take their concerns.  FINALLY!

Oh wait, for the last 20 years, yes that is correct 20 YEARS, there has been an ombudsman in the Maryland State Department of Education for that exact same purpose.   The MSDE ombudsman is supposed to research parental concerns and act as an intermediary between the families and the local school districts.  And this person is supposed to act with the power and authority of the State Department of Education.

How’s that working for you?  Thought so.   In fact I would guess that most people reading this were not even aware that such a position existed at MSDE.  After the job was created by state and federal legislation, the responsibilities were added to those the individual already had.  So it was not a dedicated position.  The woman who had the responsibility did a decent job because she really cared.  She retired a number of years ago and today it is unclear exactly who has that responsibility.   In any event, the name of the person and the assignment were never advertised nor made known to the disability community.

Now comes a similar position, this time attached to the Attorney General’s office.  We do not know if this will be a separate individual position of a task added to someone’s other duties.

Here is what we do know.  No one will save us but ourselves.  The disability community has a great deal of work to do.  Tremendous energy has been expended on getting every child the right to an appropriate education.  That has been happening since 1975.   We are 45 years into the fight, and yet the employment of people with disabilities is WELL below any other minority group.   The situation is really bad if you are “twice blessed”, have a disability and be a person of color.  What is the point of working toward a good education if the individual does not have a financial future.  We need to stop depending on ombudsmen who create a feel good moment but no real change.  No one is going to help the disability community but ourselves.   It is past time for us to get moving on part two of the journey.

What's the best parenting style

What is the best parenting style for your kids?

Teaching and parenting aren’t all that different.   Different styles tend to produce  different kinds of kids.  

Kids need direction.  They need to know that there is some authority figure that can give them the guidance they need.  Parents and teachers who work in an authoritative way with kids produce remarkably well-adjusted children and adults.  Authoritative in NOT authoritarian which does not have as positive results.  Authoritarian parents/teachers set strict boundaries but do not teach the skills to allow kids to achieve expectations.  On the other hand, authoritative figures expect a great deal from children.  But they are also willing to put in the hard work to carefully explain expectations and are willing to put in the hard work to teach those skills. Children of authoritative parents and teachers enjoy positive relationships with peers and become independent and self-sufficient according to most recent research.

We like to think that all parents love their kids.  Teachers also love many of the children in their classes.  Parents who have strong physical and emotional bonds with their children often base their connection with kids on a strong bond of attachment.   Many teachers use the same approach recommending that students do learning tasks “for Ms. Lincoln”, rather than for the value of the learning.  Proponents of this approach to parenting insist that there are many fewer behavioral problems.  The risk is that both parent and child can lose their individuality and feel totally connected and blended as one.

Do you remember a few years ago when a New York mother was cited for failure to care for her 9-year old child when she allowed him to ride the subway by himself?   Free-range parenting believes in letting kids function independently with careful and judicious parental oversight.  The goal is for children to develop self-determination that will benefit them throughout life.  The advantages to children are that they will grow into independent adults.  Some teachers and schools use this approach allowing students to go from activity or subject based on whatever interests them at the moment.  For teachers or parents to use this approach, it is important to be aware of school rules or of what local laws are for leaving children unsupervised.  

At the other end of the control continuum are teachers and parents who want to remove all possibility of failure for kids’ experience.  Teachers will make sure that instruction for children is not too challenging as to cause struggle or frustration.  This is a lawnmower approach to challenges that may be in the child’s way.  With this approach, a parent may intervene with authorities to make sure the child does not experience the full consequences of behavior.  Bulldozing life obstacles will make for a slightly smoother adolescence for the child.  However, while life for the child may be easier in the short-term, the child misses the opportunity to learn to manage the slings and arrows of life that will come. These children often are less confident because they have not had to learn to solve a tough academic challenge or work through adapting to the failures that life will throw at them.

It is unusual for a parent or teacher to only be one style, but most tend to gravitate toward one style or another.   The right choice is the one that works best for the teacher/parent and the child.   Outcomes will be different.

Can't Win for Losing

Can’t Win for Losing

Three years ago the Supreme Court issued a ruling known as Endrew v. Douglas County School District.  The Court ruled unanimously, as in right leaning and left leaning justices, that a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) “must be appropriately ambitious in light of a student’s circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in regular classrooms.”  The Court went on to say, “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives”.  

Advocates for the disabled were thrilled by the decision.   Endrew determined that every IEP for a child with a disability needed to ensure that a child “make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” have “challenging objectives” and be “appropriately ambitious.”   Legal analysts agree that all three prongs of the decision are legally binding.

Parents felt that now they had a case if their child did not make progress from year to year in the child’s current program.  More appeals of IEPs were filed.   Parents had hope that this decision from the highest court would improve outcomes for their children.

Turns out, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Except in this instance the outcomes for parents became worse.  Recently the Journal of Legislation and Public Policy published by the New York University looked at 142 federal court decisions since the Endrew ruling.   They found that the school districts won 114 of those decisions.  That is a “win rate” of 98% for the school systems.   In cases heard prior to the Endrew decision, school districts were winning 90% of the cases.   So the Supreme Court decision that was supposed to help children, actually is helping school districts win.

Why is that?  Mostly the researchers believe that the primary reason is that judges are not looking at all three prongs of Endrew AND the family attorneys are insufficiently schooled to make sure that they do.   Others believe that the statistics do not tell the whole influence of Endrew.   These people believe that children are benefiting much earlier in the process and that Endrew is very much influencing IEPs.  

Only problem with that is that school systems are also winning 95% of the cases at the due process hearings and at state level cases.  Seems that regardless of where cases are heard, parents and their kids can’t win for losing.