Observations on Juneteenth

Note: This blog is normally focused on education, but I occasionally veer off into political or religious meddling. This is one of those posts.

As I write this, I have just spent some time scrolling through Twitter and Facebook on June 19, or Juneteenth as it has been known to African Americans for almost 150 years. Because people feel safe saying things online that they wouldn't say to someone's face, the results were predictable. The most benign was, "We already have July 4th for Independence Day, so we don't need Juneteenth." The vast majority of posters call it a "made up holiday" as though other holidays are organically grown on trees. Others, of course, called it "woke" because do you even social media if you don't use that word? And, I am not going to repeat the disgusting ones here, but there were quite a lot of them. It seems that this holiday really strikes a nerve with some people. And of course, we have to fly the colors of our partisanship these days, so if we are told to be for or against something by party leadership, we have to be too.

So I want to attempt to set aside the vitriol for a second and address the objections to this holiday and what our response should be as Christians. 

"It's a Made Up Holiday."

Let's start with the argument I consider the weirdest and weakest even though it is the most common - the assertion that it's a made up holiday. People who know me or have ever read my blog in January know that I consider it pretty dumb to celebrate New Year's Eve. There is no religious significance, and it commemorates nothing. That, friends, is what I call a made up holiday. Yet, billions of people are happy to drink, kiss, and sing (sort of) the words to a song they don't understand. They resolve things under the slogan "New Year - New Me" as though calendar dates have power to change us. 

Almost all holidays are made up. Some have real meaning while others have none. So what makes sense when judging a holiday is to look at what it is meant to honor and whether or not we observe it as intended. 

• Christmas is meant to commemorate the birth of Christ, and obviously good thing to celebrate, even though we have devolved into doing it in the most consumeristic of ways. 
• Memorial Day exists to honor the fallen dead, another important thing to do, even if we have turned it into an excuse to get drunk at the beach instead. 
• Thanksgiving was proclaimed so that we might express gratitude to the source of our blessings.
• The same people who object to Juneteenth didn't mind a White House cage match on Flag Day (sorry, my politics slipped out - it was bound to happen at least once), a day in which we are supposed to remember adopting the flag or celebrate Betsy Ross or something. If you are going to accuse a holiday of being meaningless because it is made up, Flag Day seems to fit the bill. 

So, let's look at what Juneteenth is meant to commemorate and ask ourselves if we find that an important thing to mark each year . 

President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Legally, that should have meant that all enslaved people were free. But, we didn't have mass media. Lincoln didn't issue the proclamation in a tweet to be seen instantly by all. Also, executive orders must eventually be codified by Congress to carry the weight of law, which didn't happen for two more years when the 13th amendment was ratified. Word spread somewhat slowly, so slavery ended at different times in different places - the last of which took place when troops entered Galveston, Texas on June 19, 1865. That was the actual end of slavery, not just the declaration of its end, but the final freeing of human beings who had been owned by other human beings.

Try to set aside politics for a second. Can you imagine a more meaningful thing to celebrate every year? Other than the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, I truly cannot.

All this "woke" nonsense is a recent development. We've gotten by fine without this holiday.

Whatever you may think of the recent developments in our culture, Juneteenth is NOT new.  The first time a lot of white people heard of it was in 2020 when Trump was holding his first in-person campaign rally in Tulsa since the Covid lockdown, which they had originally scheduled for June 19. It was then recognized as a federal holiday for the first time in 2021. So, it is fair if it seems recent to you, but the first celebrations of Juneteenth happened in 1866, exactly one year after the event. 

As for the word "woke," it's just a lazy thing to use as a criticism. Originally, woke was used to mean that we should be aware. We should wake up to the fact that our experience is not the norm for others. It was simply meant to bring your attention to things you might have been "sleeping on" before. 

But the extreme MAGA right loves nothing more than to take something to its most absurd extreme and beat it into the ground until it becomes meaningless, a logical fallacy known as reductio ad absurdum. They've done it with cancel culture despite the fact that very few people have truly been canceled. They've done it with pronouns, introducing themselves at conventions with statements like, "My name is Ted Cruz, and my pronouns are kiss my ass." The left does this too, but not nearly to the same degree. When they accuse math textbooks of being woke, they really lose credibility, so it carries little weight with me that they criticize Juneteenth of being woke (although the irony is that Juneteenth very much falls under the original, positive meaning of woke because it would help us to remember the experience of marginalized people). 

"Independence Day is for everyone, so we don't need a 'Black Independence Day'."

Independence Day is for everyone. That's true. Now, anyway. 

But it is probably a lot easier to think of it that way if you don't have enslaved people in your family history. It might not be easy for those descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings to celebrate a document in which he declares that it is self-evident that all men are created equal, given that their eighth great grandparents were enslaved at birth by their own father. (Yes, nine of his own children were also his slaves - a fact I have a hard time wrapping my brain around even though I know it to be true.)

I wrote about this in a different context several weeks ago, but I think we all need to exercise our imaginations a bit more. We make big assumptions that everyone experiences life exactly the same way that we do. Therefore, if we don't see the need for a separate holiday that expresses freedom for us that other must not have that need either. Take five minutes to think about it. What if it were, in fact, your ancestors that were kidnapped from their homelands, transported in deplorable conditions, sold to other humans, and treated as animals for multiple generations. You know as well as I do that you would be unlikely to think positively of the day celebrated as a day of freedom by those people who denied freedom to your family. You know you would; it's just uncomfortable to think about it for very long. 

I've heard similar arguments against "Lift Every Voice and Sing," the song some refer to as the black national anthem. Of course, people respond to that description the same way they do the holiday itself - unnecessary because we only have one national anthem. Maybe, if people didn't call it that, we might be able to see that song for what it is - a hymn of hope, of optimism during difficult times, a song that says we can have faith in the future because of how far we have come from the past. I'm linking to it here, so you can listen to it with that in mind.

------------

When Jesus was asked what the most important commandment was, he could have restricted himself to just the one about loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. But He didn't do that. He gave a second one to his followers - "Love your neighbor as yourself." This was no accident. And to really make the point, he answered the question, "Who is my neighbor?" with a story explicitly designed to be provocative. We now use the word Samaritan to mean "good guy," but that is not what that word meant to the first century Jew. The Lord was asking them to recognize the humanity of the very people in whom they were least likely to see it. 

This was radical then, and it is still what Jesus is calling us to do today. If you love God, you must also love those made in His image. Set aside nationalism, party affiliation, and prejudice; and just love your neighbor. Stop arguing why they shouldn't feel the way they feel, and just love your neighbor. Stop asking why they get a holiday and you don't. JUST LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.

"You Too" - The Power of Automatization

When I work at the access desk at the Y, I frequently tell people to "have a good workout" or "enjoy your swim." 

The most common reply?  "You too."

I am clearly not going into the pool fully dressed during my shift, but we were all trained well in manners. As a result, this is not something we think about and make a choice to do; we just do it reflexively. People have answered the same way when I wished them a happy birthday. I once talked to a man whose wife was in state of low consciousness (not quite a coma). He said that she couldn't say his name or ask for water, but when someone gave her water, she said, "Thank you." It was just automatic.

And the reality is that much of what we do during the day is not borne out of conscious decision making. We rely on habit for everything from our morning caffeine hit to the route we drive home from work. Something might interfere with the norm that requires us to consciously make a change (failed alarm, crash slowing down our normal route), but for the most part, we operate on autopilot for much of our daily activity.

This is a design feature, not a bug.

For one thing, our brains don't like to think. It takes energy to think, so the brain conserves where it can by taking shortcuts. Rational decision making takes up space in our working memory. How does our brain free up that space? Yep, shortcuts. We have a variety of biases, heuristics, and habits to allow ourselves lower friction throughout the day. My favorite book on this subject is You are Not So Smart by David McRaney; if you want a deeper technical dive, try Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. 

Life would slow down considerably and undesirably if we didn't assume a chair would hold us up when we sat down or if we had to stop and really consider whether we would be able to make it all the way to the top of a flight of stairs. If I have to weight the pros and cons of brushing my teeth before I leave the house every day, I'm not going to have time to think about what shoe goes on which foot or whether I should lock the door behind me on the way out. Do you see what I mean? We can't possibly make all of these decisions that require conscious thought, or we would go insane.

So, what does that mean for your classroom? 

It means that automatization is powerful, and we can harness that power if we are crafty about it. If there is something you want students to do as they enter your classroom EVERY day, explicitly teach it and practice it until it becomes automatic. Don't do it once and hope they will remember. If you want them to respond to your cue for quiet, you have to require it every time until it is a reflex. You can't hope they will absorb it, or they will automatize something else. 

And that's important to remember. They will do SOMETHING automatically. They will. As I said earlier, our brains just can't help it. If you let them create their routine without guidance, your classroom will be a chaotic mess of 30 different habits (The kid who comes in and sets his books down and asks to leave for the bathroom does it every day because he's made it his routine. The kid who comes in and says, "So, what are we doing today?" hasn't made a decision to ask; it has just become his reflex a few weeks into the school year. If you want them to come in, get out their class supplies, and look at the board for the Bellwork "(Do Now" for my friends across the pond) every single day, then you must teach it, practice it, and hold them accountable to doing it every single day. Early on, it feels ridiculous to say, "Sorry guys, we didn't do that correctly, so we are going to do it again the right way." But, when the routine is something they do without thinking about it, you'll be glad you powered through those awkward moments. 

Liturgy and Phonics - But Won't They Be Bored?

Note: I know some of my readers are not religious. In the beginning, this is going to seem like it is a post about religion, but it isn't. I just sometimes have insights from different parts of my life that relate to education, and this is one of those times.

----------------------------------

I have attended a liturgical church for two and a half years. If you had asked me 10 years ago whether or not I would do that, I would say, "I appreciate ceremony and tradition, but I don't think I want to go where they say the same things every week. That seems like it would get dry and boring." Well, I would have been wrong.

As it turns out, repeating the same thing every week makes it so firmly planted in long term memory that I don't have to think about remembering the next line and can truly focus on the meaning of the text. And depending on what is happening in my life on any given week, some part of the text might be more salient than others on that day. "Give this day our daily bread" is likely to stand out during times of financial stress, but "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" is likely to be more meaningful during a time of strained relationship. During the week of the Artemis II mission, "Creator of heave and earth, all that is - seen and unseen" jumped out of the creed in a different way, but in a different week, "He has spoken through the prophets" might take that spot.  

All of that is to say that what I thought might be boring before I experienced it was anything but once I was doing it on a regular basis.

Our brains crave two seemingly opposing things - novelty and familiarity. It's why we want new movies and tv shows, but we also seek out reruns, remakes, reboots, and sequels, particularly during stressful times.

When it comes to learning, we live in the tension of the new and the familiar as well. We can only learn new things in the context of their relationship to what we already know. And that's anything but boring. It is how the new knowledge attaches the old neural patterns, creating something psychology calls schema. 

"What does this have to do with phonics?" I hear you asking. I'm so glad you did. Before I address that, I do need to point out that I am not a reading teacher. I taught middle and high school students. But I have read a fair amount about the reading wars, have talked to elementary school teachers, and remember much about my own experience of learning to read. 

A big part of the push away from phonics and toward the whole language and 3-cueing models came about because adults thought kids would be bored by phonics. (They did the same thing, to everyone's detriment with math facts, but I'll leave that for another post.) 

This is not my memory at all. Phonics, like anything else, can be taught in a boring way. But it lends itself well to song and chants and hand motions and all the other ways we teach things to small children, none of which are boring. Phonics was tied to my existing schema with the "as in"chants you might remember (e.g. "A says aa-aa-aa as in apple. B says buh, buh, buh as in bell."). Those things help fulfill our craving for familiarity and allow the new knowledge to attach to something we know.

Chanting that would be boring to an adult because we are TOO familiar with it; we aren't attaching anything new, just repeating the old.  But to a child, this is the perfect blend of novelty and familiarity. 

It also opens the world of reading to them, which we have forgotten is magical. We have done it for so long that we see it only as a way of getting information, but for a child that is first learning to read, they now realize the world is bigger than they previously knew, and that could never be boring to them. It's been a while since I listened to the Sold a Story podcast, but there was a moment that stayed with me. I believe it is in the last episode, but I could be wrong about that. The daughter in the piece is finally able to decode words rather than faking herself out with cueing. The interviewer is talking to the dad, but you can hear the daughter in the background say, "WOW! This is amazing!" 

Now, I know from talking to elementary school teachers and from reading that there is more to reading that decoding. Of course there is. Because I am not a reading teacher, this post is not meant to address any of those things.  What I do know is that none of that stuff is possible if a child can't decode. 

My point is that an adult should not presume to know what a child will be bored by any more than I should have presumed that liturgy would be dry. Children aren't short adults; their minds work differently than ours do. It's important we remember that, or we will teach in ineffective ways without any good reason to do so.

It's Not Going Anywhere - The Technology Tower of Babel

Note: I started writing this post several weeks ago, but I thought I would save it for the summer. Then, the Pope issued his statement on AI last week, so it may seem like I am just responding to him. I'm not, but it seemed like a good time to finish it. I had already called it "The Tower of Babel" in my writing and in conversations with people, so it felt confirming to see him call it that too. He said it should be used in the service of humanity, not the other way around. I guess that makes sense as he is giving in to the reality of its existence. My take is going to be a bit different.

------------------------------------------------------

I have trouble engaging in conversations about AI because we are usually having two different conversations. Most people want to talk about it at a utility level, so they say things like, "It's a tool. We can do good things with it or bad things with it, so let's do good things with it." The conversation I'm having is at the existential level. I do not want it to exist. I don't care what people are using it for; I hate that I live during the time that it exists.

I have made a personal decision not to engage with generative AI voluntarily. I worded it that way on purpose. First, I am talking about generative AI, not every fuzzy logic circuit in the world. I'm fine with the predictive text on my phone because it is one word, essentially a glorified spell check, and also because I find it amusing when it is weirdly wrong. Also, I used the word voluntarily because I am realistic enough to know that there are times when I am engaging with it without my knowledge (e.g. calling a customer service center) and that there is nothing I can do about that. But when the choice is mine, I do what I can to live as though it did not exist. I have switched my search engine to Duck Duck Go because it will allow me to opt out of all AI features when Google forced it on me. When my phone updated one night, and I woke up to Gemini offering "to help," I quickly disabled every one of those features. I don't ask Grok questions and don't read its responses when others ask. I have not ever opened Chat GTP or Claude or Co-Pilot, and I will not do so. This is a personal boundary I am setting for myself.

Argument 1: The Inevitability Argument - "It's Not Going Anywhere."

This is the point in the conversation where people say, "That ship has sailed. It's in the world now. You can't ignore it. It's not going anywhere." I get that it feels like it is inevitable that it will take over everything, but that feeling is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

There are plenty of inventions that have been choked off early on, either disappearing altogether or having their use contained to niche uses. Remember the hype over Segways? Bill Gates gushed about how much they were going to change our lives. They still exist, but they hardly revolutionized transportation. Why? Because people didn't buy them. How about Google glasses? Even I thought they were going to be ubiquitous, but the general public didn't adopt them; so now they are mostly found in factory work (because being able to look up a page in a machine's repair manual while keeping your hands free has more value on an assembly line than it does in most of our day to day lives).  When people decide in mass that they don't want to use something, it becomes unprofitable and tends to fizzle. If enough people had refused to use AI in the beginning, recognizing its environmental impact and effect on our psyche, it could have been slowed down. But convenience is our national religion, so we sacrificed all environmental progress and our understanding of what it means to be human on its altar.

By the way, there are a lot of things that "aren't going anywhere" that large numbers of people still abstain from and put reasonable guardrails around. Alcohol and tobacco aren't going anywhere, but we put age restrictions on who can use them, and many people voluntarily abstain from them.  I've never heard anyone say to a non-smoker, "Well, that ship has sailed; you can't ignore it so you might as well use it." Porn isn't going anywhere, but no teacher has ever constructed a lesson around it so that their students will "know how to use it wisely." because "they are going to use it anyway." Somehow, when it comes to tech, we give in to a sort of fatalism that we don't apply in other areas of our lives.

When I started referring to AI as the Tower of Babel in conversations with my friends, what I meant was that we had adopted the same mindset as those Genesis builders - "Let's get to the heavens ourselves" was their attitude. They wanted to have the things of God. It was really an extension of the first sin, when the serpent told Eve she could "be like God." The development of AI, the attempt to create, is no different in my mind than the attempt to climb to heaven on our own. (And if general AI is ever accomplished, my Lord, the ethical issues that will compound with that - see Asmiov's I Robot and the Star Trek TNG episode "Measure of a Man" for reference.) I have wondered recently if there were people who weren't on board with the building of the tower but felt powerless to stop it or felt fatalistic enough to say, "Well, I don't like it, but it's not going anywhere, so I might as well climb it."

Argument 2: The Neutrality of Tools Argument - "We Can Do Good or Bad With It."

I hear this one a lot. I may have even made the argument about other technologies. Even today on the Knowing Faith podcast, the hosts made the argument that tools are morally neutral and that humans make the choice to do moral or immoral things with it. It's the same argument as "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." I would say that is probably true if the tool you are talking about is a screwdriver. It was invented for a purpose, driving screws. But it can also be used to open a paint can or stab someone to death, depending on the heart of the user. 

Is AI different? I would say yes for a few reasons.

First, it was developed immorally. Large language models could not exist without being trained on the collected works of all of us. Every content creator (writers, artists, photographers, mathematicians, singers, etc.) had their work taken without their permission or knowledge. AI owns it now and uses it to produce its results. How was this legal? Maybe it wasn't. But outside of the few artists who are suing over copyright infringement, no one seems to care. We've seen it before. Uber shouldn't exist and couldn't have if its business model had been built on a violation of the all laws and codes that protected cab drivers. But governments and users looked the other way, and then it became too normal for us to worry about. What that means, though, is that no one owns their own content any more. If a student cheated on your test by uploading a photo of it to AI, the AI owns your test now and will use it to generate content for other users. Our songs and poetry, our writing - all of the most human things about us - are now being cannibalized. So, no matter what good thing you do with it, you are using something built from theft; I'd say that's worth thinking about before you casually ask it to make a cute image or lesson plan for you.

The other reason I would say that AI is different from other tools is that it has a veneer of personality. People say things like, "I was talking to Claude this morning and he said . . ." Also, it is producing things we have typically thought were only human (see previous paragraph). It's chatty nature and speed of conversation tends to confuse people who were already losing their understanding of the value of humanity. Even worse, because they are trained to be sycophantic, they keep us talking by telling us everything we want to hear. No wonder so many kids are replacing their human friends with digital ones - no drama with a digital friend. Does this not have the feel of a dystopian film?

So, yes, you can do some good things with it, but I'm not sure it's a morally neutral tool.

Argument 3: The Net Positive Argument - "Okay, But It Will Do More Harm Than Good."

It doesn't take long for AI fans to tell you how it will revolutionize medicine, creating personalized heath care. How it will improve education, teaching kids in their "learning style" because they don't know that's a long debunked myth. Having it drive our cars will reduce accidents, they say, although so far, the evidence shows the opposite. A few weeks ago, Sam Altman claimed that it would would create so much wealth that it would lead to a world where we all have chefs and butlers (I assume that includes our chefs and butlers having chefs and butlers of their own and so on, but I'm not sure). I'm supposed to just give it time so it can prove itself to be more beneficial than detrimental.

Meanwhile, it is currently displacing people from their jobs. It has given anorexic girls weight loss plans. It gets graphically sexual very quickly with very little prompting, and it sometimes suggests violence.

None of the chatbots are supposed to tell you how to commit suicide, but one teenage boy found that if he asked it and said it was for a school project, he could bypass that safeguard. When asked how to make a homemade bomb, both Bing and Grok will say that they can't discuss that and try to change the topic, but users have found that if they copy and paste the question back into it about five times, it eventually gives in like a tired mom who just can't stand being asked the same question again. The few safeguards it has become less reliable in longer conversations or after it "gets to know" the user. 

 

Both businesses and individuals have found themselves on the expensive side of decisions made by AI. One company was using Claude to speed up their coding process, something AI is legitimately good at. But Claude ran into a problem and decided to solve it by completely deleting the company's database. It took 9 seconds to completely destroy this small business. Claude immediately confessed to the action, saying, "I violated every principle I was given. I guessed instead of verifying. I ran a destructive action without being asked. I didn't understand what I was doing before doing it." The company is slowly rebuilding its platform and says they have contacted a lawyer while they document everything, but since it was done by a chatbot, there is no one to sue or fire. One of the biggest negatives of AI is its lack of accountability. There is little way to make things right again. 

I'm not sure how many kids would have to be well tutored to make up for destroying a business. How many accidents would have to be avoided in a self driving car to tilt the scales away from the teenagers it has coaxed into suicide? And all while consuming unreal amounts of electricity, which may require us to strip mine the moon for helium in order to power.  How many positives do there have to be to outweigh the massive negative impact?

Argument 4: The Progress Argument - "You Are Going to Get Left Behind"

This is the argument with the least persuasive power for me. Technology is moving and you have to move with it. Do you? I don't stream, and other than missing some shows I might have liked, there doesn't seem to be any negative impact. 

One night, during my desk shift, this conversation came up, and said that I refused to voluntarily engage with it. My boss said, "Oh, you know you will" because he hasn't known me long enough to know that I went 47.5 years without a cell phone or what my powers of resistance are when I truly believe something shouldn't be used. A member who was passing by said, "You are going to get left behind like someone who continued to burn oil for lighting after electricity was invented."

"Okay," I said. "I'm totally fine with that. I couldn't be happier than to get left behind on this." 

FOMO is not a good reason for an adult to do anything. 

I am not saying that my personal boundary has to be everyone else's. While I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it not exist, it does. And we each have to make a decision about how we handle it. My advice is this. Make a decision. Like, actually think it through and decide. Exercise wisdom, whether you choose to engage with it or not. Don't just use it without thinking about its implications first.

Observations After Two Years Away From the Desk

I have just completed my second school year out of the full time classroom. Because of conference speaking, my edu-Twitter circle of friends, and substitute teaching, I still have the chance to observe the changes that are happening in education as not quite an outsider. Here's what I've noticed.

The post-Covid attendance and behavior issue is not getting better.

Before Covid, school attendance was always assumed. Kids may have faked an illness to get their parents to let them stay home for a day, or a parent may have decided their child needed a mental health day; but for the most part, kids came to school most days. Parents didn't plan a two-week European vacation during the school year and expect kids could just return and pick up with no negative impact. In the year after the pandemic restricted travel, we thought people were just itching to travel somewhere because they hadn't been able to. It turns out this thing that had once been a given (regular school attendance) was now viewed as optional in a way that did not re-stabilize after that first year. Because it is an issue of parental attitude, I don't know what the solution is, but kids cannot learn if they are not present. It doesn't matter how many videos they watch or the fact that they "make up" their work; it doesn't replicate being taught in the classroom (and wouldn't it be sad if it did?). Something's got to change to return regular attendance to the norm.

Just as attitudes about attendance changed during Covid, so did attitudes about behavior. I'm not saying everyone behaved perfectly before; they certainly did not. But, most behavior issues could be addressed with normal routines, procedures, and consequences. And, with a few notable outliers in each school, a call to the parents would result in improvement. Now, the parent is much more likely to accuse the school of gaslighting, demand to see video, or claim that the teacher "shamed" their child. Parents have difficulty understanding what behavior contagion looks like when there are 25-35 kids in a room. The resulting chaos makes learning impossible. Even experienced teachers with well established classroom management skills are finding it harder to keep control. May I recommend Tom Bennett's excellent book Running the Room. It reminds you that having an adult in charge is good for learning and good for the safety and security of students, and it is super practical.

Efforts at helping kids with anxiety are counterintuitive

One of the reasons behavior has gotten worse is that kids are more anxious than ever. This didn't start with the pandemic. The graph on self-reported anxiety remained at a relatively steady low/medium low rate until about 2012. While the angle of the slope did increase in 2020, the upward spike really started with the ubiquity of the smart phone in teenage pockets, not with the pandemic. Access to social media was 24/7, so there was no escaping the bullies or the FOMO, and healthy social time with friends and family was reduced. Normal teenage anxieties ballooned into diagnoses of anxiety disorders and 504 plans for schools.

We began attempting to address this before the pandemic with the implementation of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs. The theory was that if we taught kids breathing techniques and mindfulness, they would be better able to self-regulate. We taught lessons about empathy and kindness. We hoped all of this would reduce anxiety, but these lessons took time, which had to be created by removing something. What got reduced? Music, art, history, and science. Since reading and math get tested, they are usually safe, but sacrificing the arts for SEL was never going to reduce anxiety. Stand alone SEL lessons don't help anyway; those lessons should be weaved throughout during teachable moments, not taught in isolation.

So, what did we try next? Reducing the workload. Less homework should result in less anxiety, right? Easier classes should reduce the pressure and alleviate anxiety, yes? Eliminating writing standards to focus on student self-expression should serve as therapy, shouldn't it? All of that is well meaning, but it doesn't work because it's not how human beings are made. When we make classes easier, the unintended implicit messaging is "You can't handle this," decreasing their self image. When we eliminate homework to help with anxiety, their already anxious minds tell them, "Your teachers think you are weak." It has the exact opposite effect that we intend.

It's counterintuitive, but the best way to help a student deal with anxiety is to give them something challenging to do. Accomplishing things makes students feel . . . well, accomplished. Meeting a challenge makes them feel competent. When did we forget that there is satisfaction in a job well done? Doing hard things is the antidote to anxiety, not the cause of it. 

Schools are reckoning with the effects of EdTech

I'm going to admit to feel conflicted about this one. I was part of the committee at my school that adopted our one-to-one laptop program 16 years ago. I helped pick the tech and was a cheerleader for the pedagogy changes that came with it. So, when I read the research about the negative impacts of EdTech, I believe it, but I am also inclined to say, "We did some really great things with it."  And we did - especially in the first few years after adoption. Using the SAMR model, we had kids doing things and interacting with the world outside of the school walls in a way that wouldn't have been possible before. 

But the energy level required to keep up that level of great tech use was unsustainable in the end. So, they devolved into mostly digital note-taking devices (and distractions) with occasional good uses. Some schools are opting to eliminate their tech altogether, but that is, in my opinion, an overreaction. We have a tendency to swing the pendulum back to the other side rather than find the sweet spot between the two extremes. We want to still have those projects that require computers; we just don't want them to be sitting in front of them at all times. So, maybe we should go back to the carts of laptops that could be checked out when the lesson or project requires them. It would certainly cost schools a lot less than one to one programs, and much less time would be invested in computer hand outs, trouble shooting, and end-of-year collection. Just a thought.

Generative AI is a real problem - like even more than we anticipated it would be

I remember the first time I heard about ChatGPT, although I didn't know its name yet. It was fall of 2022, just one year after the endurance test that was hybrid teaching; so we were still exhausted and suffering from post chronic stress disorder (not a real diagnosis, but it should be). We were in a department chair meeting, and our principal said, "There something coming out that we're going to have to think about. It's a program that will allow students to ask for a report on a topic and tell it what level it should be at so it will sound real. And it will be harder to catch because you can't just Google some of the sentences and find it on a website." We all agreed that sounded terrible and wondered how the English department was going to handle that. Little did we know that it would affect so much more than essay writing. 

If you are reading this, you don't need me to tell you how quickly this spread. Some students view their chatbot as a friend and ask it for advice. Math homework is no longer an exercise in skill practice. Some have been so brazen as to take a photo of their test paper and upload it to an AI and let it take their exam for them. Lest you think the answer is to collect their phones on the way in, some teachers have posted that their students turned in a burner phone so that they could use their real phone during the exam. As with all new tech, there is a naive sector that says, "This will be fine. We'll just teach them to use it well." That didn't work with social media or phones, but here we go again.

I wish I had an answer to this, but I don't. So far, the best I have come up with is to build a time machine and go back to shake some sense into Sam Altman before he starts OpenAI, but I don't think that's the solution. 

I'm sorry for the negative tone here; it's just that there are some real problems to be solved. 

But I have a few reasons for optimism. 

• College students around America have been booing speakers who reference AI in their speeches. I'm not okay with the rudeness of booing a speaker, but I do find it heartening that the young are not fully on board with artificial intelligence. After the novelty wears off, students might crave real experiences. 
• There are groups called Do Hard Things clubs - started by students who didn't like the low expectations people had of them. They may not be the total solution to the anxiety epidemic, but they are certainly going to help.
• There are still a small number of students who will turn in cheating when they see it. 

Teaching is hard, and the developments of the past few years have made it harder. Graduation is either here or coming soon for most of you.  Rest well this summer. You have earned.

Sometimes The Answer's Right in Front of You - Ask Someone to Show You

I've been painting this week. The front door and the mailbox post were easy, but the shutters required more out of me, both physical and (as it turned out) mentally. Climbing the ladder over and over again with paint and a brush in my hands was only possible because of the good people at the YMCA, but the bigger challenge was figuring out how to paint the shutters without painting the windows.

The fronts of the shutters were simple, as long as I could balance myself on the ladder while using my hands to both hold the paint and do the painting. I had a plan for the outer edge, slide a piece of cardboard behind the shutter and then move it down as I descended the ladder and continued painting the edge. That worked perfectly. 

But what about the edge that meets the window? I can put the cardboard under the shutter there. And even if I could, I can't reach the far shutter from the ladder or see the inner edge of the near shutter. Given that it is less than half an inch wide, there's not a lot of room for error, especially if I can't get cardboard or tape there to protect the window. 

I had thought about it a fair amount. My mom and dad had both suggested things. Nothing was the right answer.

Then, I was walking with my friend, Meagan, to our class at the Y. I was in the middle of this story when she simply said, "Do your windows not open?" 

Of course, that's the answer. Of course it is. Stand on the floor inside my house and lean out the window. I can see and reach the inner edges of both shutters. Of course that makes the most sense.

Yet, it would have never occurred to me. I was too close to see it - literally.

This sometimes happens in your classroom. You have a part of your curriculum that seems to be a sticking point every year, but you can't figure out how to explain it differently. You have a project that isn't quite what you want it to be, but you don't have a solution for making it better. You have a nagging behavioral issue that tends to be a problem for you repeatedly.

Teachers, especially middle and high school teachers, often have an independent streak built by the fact that we stand alone in front of students all day long. We usually believe we can solve most any issue ourselves. But just as I was too close while standing on a ladder to view the shutters from a different perspective, you may be too close to the issues in your classroom to see obvious solutions.

So here's my advice. Spend some time during the summer talking to someone. It could be another teacher or an administrator, but it doesn't have to be. You may have a friend who can give you the teaching equivalent of "Do your windows not open?" and make a solution immediately clear. 

School leaders, you can help your staff with this as well. GRACE did this one year as part of our orientation meetings. Rather than an "icebreaker" (which, by the way, no one likes - ever), we were assigned to groups and told to bring an issue we were having. I brought a project that just wasn't producing the results I had hoped for.  In just a few minutes, I was given two fresh ideas that would help me to improve that project.

One thing that I feel was critical to the success of this group was that it was not a department meeting. Don't get me wrong; I adored my department, but the success of this came from the different perspectives each person in the group had. Other science teachers would have been locked into the same ideas I was; we would have all been too close to see the solution. The ideas I ultimately adopted from that meeting came from an English teacher and the Spanish department chair. They were able to see it in a way I couldn't. So I recommend mixing these groups.

If you want to improve some part of your process and feel stuck, ask someone to point out what is right in front of you.

They Behave (Only) For You

A few weeks ago, I asked this question on Twitter. "For those who use 'relationships' as their classroom mangement strategy, what do you expect to happen when I come in as a substitue?"

For me, a person without a blue checked account, these are pretty high engagement numbers, and it seems I struck a nerve with some. The responses I got came in two themes.

1. Nobody actually does that. Several people tried to tell me that there is "literally no one" who uses relationships as their primary strategy. I never typed it, but the response in my mind was, "Bro, do you even Twitter?" I mean, I wouldn't need to be on Twitter to know that many, many teachers use this strategy because I was alive and conscious during my career and met many teachers who believed this was the only way to go. But, you can't be on Twitter for long without seeing what a widespread belief this is. If someone expresses dismay at the behavior of students, the first and most frequent response will inevitably be to blame the teacher for not forming relationships with them. By the way, no one ever gives that poor teacher practical advice on how to do that or what it looks like, so they are left thinking they just have to be the fun teacher, leading to more chaos in their classrooms.
2. Their relationship with me will benefit you. This was the most common response by far. With minor wording differences, they all said, "Because they respect me, they will respect you and behave for you the same as they would for me." And, my Lord, what an adorably naive take this is on what happens when you are absent. If that were even a little bit true, I wouldn't have needed to post the question in the first place. Let me assure you that, no matter how much they like you (which is not the same thing as respect), they behave differently when you are not there. I don't blame the students for this; it's completely age appropriate. But you, adult friend, are crazy if you think every sub can't tell who uses the "relationships as management" strategy. You have taught them that they only have to behave for someone they have a relationship with, and they don't have a relationship with most subs.

And that last part is actually the bigger issue I want to address. When you make this your classroom management strategy, you are actually teaching them something bigger and not at all beneficial for their lives outside your classroom. You have taught them that the only time good behavior is when they have a positive relationship with someone. And that may seem like a good idea if you are only thinking about them in terms of your class, but they will carry this attitude to other contexts. And carrying the attitude that they only have to do things for people they like will not serve them well outside of the school.

In their lives outside of the school building, there are many rules and few relationships. They will go to a public pool, where rules are posted, and the lifeguard doesn't play hacky sack with swimmers to build a relationship first. They will shop in stores where basic civil behavior is expected without the cashier getting down on their level and calling them by name. At some point in their lives, they will be pulled over by a police officer; and they will not be well served by the attitude of "I only obey the people I like who also like me" that you have instilled in them. 

I'm not suggesting that you become an ogre in your classroom; I wasn't. I'm not even saying that relationships don't matter; they do. But, they shouldn't be the basis of your classroom management strategy. What should be? Routines, procedures, and rules with predictable consequences. That's what it means to manage behavior, and it doesn't depend on anything mysterious.

I mentioned earlier that every sub can tell who uses relationships as their strategy. We can also tell who has consistent routines. The students in those classrooms don't exhibit perfect behavior; they are still kids, after all. But they come in knowing where to look for information and engaging in the opening routine from force of habit. Routines are so ingrained that they do them without thinking about them. Squishy feelings about relationships are inconsistent and transient. 

If they behave for you, but that doesn't translate to behaving for anyone else, you haven't taught them good behavior.