On the Rabbit Trail
Sunday, February 8, 2026
Book Review - The Lockdown Artist by Jay Wamsted
Sunday, February 1, 2026
Yes, We Are Like That - And We Should Repent
When Joe Biden was President, and there were shootings or tragic crimes, he often put some variation of the sentence "This is not who we are as Americans" in his response speech. While I know what he meant, each time I thought, "If it's not, then how does it keep happening here?" It would have been more accurate to say, "This is not who we SHOULD be as Americans."
For the past two weeks, as we have witnessed the clash between ICE agents and protestors in Minnesota, there have been similar sentiments online. After Renée Good's death, one tweet read, in part, "We love our neighbors. We aspire to live by the Golden Rule. We are better than this." Another said, "Consider the outlook Jesus would have on you celebrating her death. We are not them. Stop acting like you are."
This isn't a semantic difference. To declare that our actions do not reflect who we are just doesn't make sense. What are we asking people to judge us by if not the things we say and do. If not our actions and our words, what are we?
Statements like this, even when well meaning and aspirational, are a problem. They give cover to the darkest parts of us while allowing us to delude ourselves into believing that our hearts are not dark. You've gotten this non-apology from someone, "I'm sorry I said that, but you know I didn't mean it. That's not who I am." We've seen this from celebrities like Paula Dean, Mel Gibson, and Michael Richards after their very public racist rants. Some jumped to defend them because of the circumstances under which they said it (duress, drunkenness, being pushed to their limits, etc.).
But here's the thing. Something can't come out of you if it's not in you. No matter how hard you squeeze an orange, you won't get coffee out of it.
If a tube is unlabeled, the only way to know if it is toothpaste or Preparation H is to put it under pressure. Pressure doesn't create; it reveals.
We shouldn't apologize for saying something we didn't mean; we should apologize for meaning it. And, we should definitely not minimize things by claiming it to be outside of our character.
Teachers, this matters in our classrooms. If we want to help our students develop good character, we cannot let them get away with "that's not who I am" apologies. And, we can't model them. When we have lost our temper or crossed the line in our speech, true apologies are needed, not evasions of responsibility dressed up as contrition. True apologies include three things:
- An admission of the action (I did/said this thing.)
- An acceptance of the damage done (This thing I did harmed you.)
- An attempt to make things right (I will repair what can be repaired, and I will not do this again in the future.)
Friday, January 30, 2026
Notes from NCAIS Neurodiversity Conference - January 30 2026
NCAIS is the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools. This conference is focused on meeting the needs of neurodiverse students. The notes below are raw, unedited, and will likely be mixed with my own reactions (I may not agree with what a speaker has said and will process my reaction to it). I will update between sessions.
Keynote: The Neurodiverse Hero's Journey - Become the Strong and Kind Adult in the Room by Peyten Williams, Bowbend Consulting
Every hero's journey begins in the ordinary world as nobody special, before there is a call to adventure. If you have come to a conference because you want to see change in your classroom, that is your call to adventure.Neurodiverse people have a wide variety of both strengths and challenges.
You don't have to be an expert to support these kids. You just have to show up.
Threshold guardians are those who resist or gate keep your efforts to change. What is standing in your way? It could be systems, limitations on resources, or your perception of fairness when it comes to support.
- What in your faith, values, or character made you choose teaching?
- How do you grow your social emotional intelligence?
- Do you need to broaden your perspective? Are you trying to support them or trying to "fix them"? (Lori told me in a book interview, "We didn't view that as a challenge, just a different set of facts we had to deal with.")
- What tools do you need in your toolbox? Do you know how to use them?
- Are you giving yourself grace? Nothing feels easy without practice. Keep practicing until it becomes natural.
- Who are your helpers and mentors as you learn? What research can you rely on? Who is in your community that you can learn with?
- What does this learner need to access learning with dignity? Belonging is not a reward fo compliance; it is a prerequisite for learning.
- Ability is context dependent. A difference is not a deficit in all situations. (Dr. David Rose, in a Learning and the Brain keynote, talked about his tone deafness being a benefit when the church organ was out of tune.)
- When giving directions, get attention from all fits. Be explicit and clear. Provide checklists.
- Explain the why for an expectation. Give specific and immediate feedback.
- Have your schedule displayed. Announce any changes to the routine.
- Have a calming plan
- Have visual cues - timers, graphic organizers, color codes, anchor charts, models
- Built in movement - as part of the plan
- Using peers - turn and talk, etc. (I disagree that this helps the neurodivergent student, but I didn't want to disrespect their presentation by leaving it out. The people behind me have not stopped talking since we sat down, and it is driving me cray - I can't imagine that increasing that would help me if I had ADHD.)
- Check ins - Formal or informal, make sure you follow through. Allow check ins before and after submitting their work.
- Flexible seating
- Metacognition - help kids reflect.
Sunday, January 25, 2026
Making Things Clearer - Not as Straightforward as it Seems
In the publishing of the book Show Your Work: Teaching Smarter With the Science of Learning, I'm learning a lot about the writing and publishing processes. I'm learning even more about the re-writing process. Two weeks ago, I got back all of my copyedited pages and had to accept or reject them and answer questions.
Copy editors do not play, y'all. The form they sent me said it had had a "medium" amount of editing. Then, each chapter I opened had anywhere between 75 and 175 changes or queries, leaving me to wonder what a heavy amount of editing would look like. Most of the edits were small - removing a space, adding a comma, or changing a capital letter to a lowercase one. Some were citations I had forgotten to include or changes made to fit their publishing style (the MLA I learned in high school is less useful than I was led to believe).
The edits that made me laugh the most were the ones that asked if I would like to "use the expanded version for clarity." This was the automatic note any time there was an acronym. For the most part, that makes sense. Jargon isn't accessible to most people, so if you are referencing a study done at the NIH or by the APA, it is obviously better to spell out National Institute of Health and American Psychological Association. It helps people determine the credibility of the source.
But, there are exceptions. When I was asked if I wanted to use the expanded version of SAT, I had to respond that I didn't think it would be clearer if I said Scholastic Aptitude Test as most people walk around with a vision of the SAT easily accessible in their minds and would actually have to take a beat to translate the expanded version back into the acronym for it to make sense to them. So we left that one alone. The same went for an interview I did with a biology teacher in which he talked about a question he asks students about ATP, the energy carrying molecules produced during cellular respiration. If you remember this from biology at all, you definitely only remember it as ATP. So, when asked if I wanted to use the expanded version for clarity, I had to reply, "No, I think referring to it as adenosine triphosphate will make it less clear, so let's leave that one."
My point is not about publishing or acronyms. It's about making things clear. Our jobs as teachers is to take something that isn't easy to grasp and put it within reach. When a student first looks at the periodic table, it is just a jumble of letters and numbers arranged into a strange shape, but when they leave my 8th grade classroom, they should be able to interpret things like number of protons and number of neutrons from the numbers in the square as well as things like number of energy levels and number of valence electrons from the location on the table. My teaching about the periodic table should make the information clearer.
But much like the publishing discussion, there is often a way that seems right but ultimately is not. Explicit teaching vs. discovery learning gives us as an example of that. The theory behind discovery learning seems logical - students will remember things better if they figure it out themselves. And wouldn't it be lovely if that was how our brains actually worked? But they don't. Asking a student to compare the causes of the French and American revolutions when they haven't learned anything about them yet (but have access to Google) doesn't result in deeper learning about either revolution or the larger concept of revolutionary causes. Our working memories are too limited for that. (I'm not saying you shouldn't have projects or labs; I am a science teacher and had many of both - but it should come after students have learned a concept, not as a replacement for it.)
One of the things that makes teaching hard is that we often can't have one way of doing things. Some material will be clearer if reveal it one step at a time while other material may be clearer if we first show an entire worked example, giving students the broad view before the details. We cannot just choose one method and hope all content will fit that method.
Even trickier, it is not always immediately evident when you have chosen correctly. Sometimes, it is immediately obvious if you have chosen incorrectly. I once thought it would be good for my students to see the broad picture of bond types before we began learning about them. I drew a spectrum on the board with "small electronegativity difference" on one left and "large electronegativity difference" on the right. I then proceeded to place covalent bonds, ionic bonds on the right, and polar covalent bonds in the middle along with their broad definitions and some examples. My students left that day completely overwhelmed and totally lost. The next day, I reassured them that I was going to teach each type individually and not to worry. But my hope that seeing the big picture would help them understand how the pieces fit together was not realized. The next year, I taught each type on its own and used my little spectrum drawing as a review/retrieval tool. "Where would covalent bonds go?" I asked, and they correctly answered that they would be where the electronegativity difference was small. This way was obviously clearer, but I might not have known that if I hadn't tried it the other way.
So, sometimes, we are dealing with a process of trial and error. Sometimes, you can benefit from another teacher's experience. And sometimes, you just have to use your best professional judgment and hope to be right.
Give yourself a break. The best way to make things clear is often not clear itself.
Monday, January 19, 2026
Things (and People) Will Fail - What's Your Plan?
Sunday, January 11, 2026
Can Prior Knowledge Interfere with New Learning?
This is not one of those posts where I ask a rhetorical question and then answer it. I won't be wrapping this one up with advice to teachers. I am genuinely just musing here based on something I noticed last week that caused curiosity.
In my part of education land, we talk a lot about connecting new learning to prior knowledge. Out knowledge base is our already existing schema, and new learning finds a place to fit within it. As Daniel Willingham tells us, we can only learn in relationship to what we already know. Prior knowledge enhances reading comprehension and problem solving; you can only think critically about things you know well. This is all well established and backed by solid education research.
Here's what I'm wondering, can new learning and old learning interfere with each other? In particular, I am thinking of things with a high degree of similarity.
Let me explain what got me started thinking about this.
I attend a liturgical church. If you aren't familiar with that, it involves a fair amount of congregational participation during the service - prayers we say together, call and response, and recitation of the creed and the Lord's prayer - stuff like that, individual churches will vary).
While all of it is printed in the bulletin, making it easy to read along, I decided that I wanted to memorize the things that are consistent every week. This includes, in my church, the:
- Collect for Purity (easy to learn with a little retrieval practice)
- Lord's Prayer (I've known that one since I was in kindergarten)
- Confession of Sin (a little more retrieval - got it)
- Doxology (been singing that most of my life - check)
- Nicene Creed (aye, there's the rub)
Sunday, January 4, 2026
Positively Realistic
But, at some point, we all have to admit defeat. We have to recognize that there are things we cannot do. In spite of the messaging we got from children's television in the 80s and the proliferation of athletic clothing with Philippians 4:13 printed on it, we have limitations. It's part of our design as human beings. There are certain attributes that belong only to God. Omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and the like are not something we can achieve. We tried at the tower of Babel, and we seem to be trying again with AI, but no matter how far we advance technologically, we will remain limited.
Why am I talking about this on an education blog? Well, partly because I needed to work through the hit to my pride from not being able to repair the dryer, but more importantly, we need to be realistic with students.
People who enter the education field tend to be idealistic. And, in an effort to support kids and their dreams, we get even more idealistic with them. That seems loving, but there reaches a point where it isn't. When we support things that cannot happen, we set kids up for disappointment and failure. There's a commercial on television where kids are asked what they want to be when they grow up. Most say doctors or lawyers, but one sweet little girls says she wants to be a unicorn. Now, she's about 4 in this commercial, so I think playing along with the understanding that it is make-believe is totally fine. But, as she gets older, telling her "if you can dream it, youe can be it" is not.
It's totally fine to have dreams that are long shots. I'm not saying to crush the dreams of a kid whose ambition it to be a professional athlete. There are people who achieve that goal, and they were all at one point, children with a dream. I am saying that it is good to encourage that child to have a back up plan because the percentage of talented athletes that become professionals is small, and some of them sustain career ending injuries. People with back up plans are resilient. People without back up plans often wander aimlessly for years.
My childhood dream was to pilot the space shuttle. I paid attention in math and science; I went to Space Camp; I somehow got my hands on an application for the Air Force Academy and started filling it out in the 4th grade. When I was 13, it became clear that this was not going to happen. First, I was taller than NASA's heigh limit (yes, at 13). Second, I have both eyesight and equilibrium issues. While the eyesight could have been corrected, the balance and the height were insurmountable problems. Well meaning adults in my life told me not to give up on this dream. Some said, "You'll be so good that they'll change the height rules for you." Apparently, they didn't understand the constrictive nature of spacecraft. Several went as far as to say that God would not let me want something this much if it weren't His plan for me (Now, that's dangerous counsel if ever I heard it). Thankfully, I had other, more realistic, adults around me that said, "Well, you obviously love science. What kinds of jobs might allow you to use that?" I kicked around veterinary medicine, pharmaceuticals, and physical therapy until I walked into Mr. Barbara's physics class and decided I basically wanted to be him, a person who made people love subjects most were afraid of. After 25 years of science teaching, I achieved a lot of things, but my favorite was always when a kid came into the meet and greet saying that they didn't like science leave at the end of the year excited to learn more science.
I'm not advocating for pessimism. I'm not suggesting that negativity is best. I'm advocating for realism with a positive tone. When a student shares their dream, you can be positive and say "What's your plan for making that happen?" As they tell you their plan, you can layer in nuances and back up plans without being a dream crusher. If a student has come to the realization that they can't be the thing they thought they could, be sympathetic. "I know how hard it must be to realize that, but you have a purpose. What did you love about . . .? How might you still have a job that utilizes that part?"
Whether a glass is half empty or half full doesn't depend on your mindset. It depends on what direction you are pouring the water. If you are drinking from it, the last thing you did was remove water, so you made it half empty. If you are pouring water into it, the last thing you did was add water, so you made it half full. Helping kids pour water back into their cup after a setback doesn't happen by being blindly positive. But it can happen by helping them find an achievable dream that still incorporates their "why" from their prior goals. It's both realistic and positive.
I don't believe in resolutions, but since it is January, let's make one. Let's resolve to be positively realistic with students.
Book Review - The Lockdown Artist by Jay Wamsted
One of the best things I can say about a novel is that I lost sleep over it - not because of the content, but because when it was bed time, ...
-
I keep seeing this statement on Twitter - "We have to Maslow before they can Bloom." While I understand the hearts of people who ...
-
Güten Pränken is the term coined by Jim Halpert in the series finale of The Office to describe the good pranks that he was going to play on...
-
These will be raw notes taken in real time and undergoing very little editing. They will be words from the speaker blended with my own ...