14 Comments
Aug 31, 2022Liked by Kobi Nelson

I loved this article. This type of thinking can go a long way toward defusing situations that might otherwise turn into interminable battles. And then pave the way for productive communication, even if the end result is realizing that there are fundamental differences between two parties that may never be fully reconciled. That doesn’t mean we have to be enemies.

Expand full comment

Kudos to you, Kobi, for putting this out there. There has been so much angst in the last couple of years that it is SO easy to assume the worst in many situations. The psychological impact of framing a situation as an opportunity for learning and dialogue versus "fight or flight" is huge! Is it realistic in every situation? Absolutely not. In some cases, it would honestly be unhealthy. Yet, to your point, how we frame up something internally can help us move towards understanding and collaboration, versus conflict and a win/lose situation.

Expand full comment
Aug 29, 2022Liked by Kobi Nelson

I love this piece, Kobi! Great job!

Expand full comment
Aug 29, 2022Liked by Kobi Nelson

Thank you for your column. Not every column needs to take on all the challenges education faces. However, starting with the stories we tell ourselves is good advice. It is even better if we, as a school or district community, share the common commitment to do this.

Expand full comment
Aug 29, 2022Liked by Kobi Nelson

A beautiful column. Thank you.

Expand full comment

I appreciate this column, and believe seeking mutual understanding and common ground should be the FIRST step in a parent's path to make sense of what's going on in their school.

However, this article frames the conversation as though the differences are likely to be incremental. The fact is, some of the differences between what the parent and the teacher want are categorical.

For example, if you look up the California dept of Education K-12 model curricula it becomes clear that one of the main goals in this new curricula is social justice. They want to turn students into activists. This is true for ALL of the curricula, not just social studies or ethnic studies. Even in the MATH model curricula they make clear that social justice is foundational to their mission.

In cases like this, the difference is categorical, not incremental. It wouldn't be enough to have a discussion between parent and teacher where the teacher decides that they'll still try to turn my child into an activist, just to a lesser extent than they planned. I don't want the teacher doing that AT ALL.

In sum, if the differences between the parent and the teacher are incremental, I'm right on board with you and this essay. It's also important to come into the conversation in good faith, finding out whether it's incremental or categorical before burning any bridges. If it's a categorical difference, though, is any amount of good-faith conversation likely to change the situation?

Expand full comment

I’m really disappointed in this column as it seems the author is being polyannish on the abysmal state of our education system. Special interest groups have captured all aspects of the system, prioritizing their own ideological pursuits over the learning needs of our children. THAT, in a nutshell is what needs to be addressed. The professionalism of the industry has been lost and our kids are paying the price.

What is required here, to push the conversation forward, is professionalism on behalf of the industry. Ideology and feelings need to take a back seat and kids’ educational needs must take priority. We are currently in a free for all when it comes to kids’ education. No amount of “agree to disagree “ discourse is going to improve that. But teaching a child to read, write and do a bit of math is, and should always be, top priority.

Schools have lost their way. And when teachers view parents as the enemy, there’s no coming back from that. We need to move

Forward to best teaching practices like all other professions do. And until that day comes, school choice is the only way forward.

Expand full comment

Sorry but this seems like a good idea book wise but unfortunately the current environment was created with specific goals in mind. Teachers are also controlled by external forces. The teachers union voicing parents are the enemy. School boards and the union working with the FBI on how to search out those terrorist parents.

In order to get back to logical and intelligent discussions there needs to be a change in leadership in the union and the acknowledgement that children belong to the parents. If this is un-acceptable then provide vouchers and let parents put their children where they want. But then the union cries over lost jobs and revenue.

Or step up and create a policy that all curriculum for children will be handed out at start of the school year. If parents object to subjects or books then an alternative should be made available. They are paying the bills.

Then the dialogue can start. But labeling parents as the problem or as similar to terrorists isn't a good starting point. It bears remembering that the tax payer still foots the bill. After all you wouldn't want someone telling you that your desires and goals should be left to someone else who has their own agenda.

Expand full comment

Science-based mental health therapy does not focus on forgiveness.

Expand full comment

What constitutes expertise? Is a math teacher an expert when it comes to CRT or gender related issues and if not why are they bringing those matters into their classrooms? I would add that the corollary to forgiveness is the taking of responsibility and that includes admitting one's errors and accepting responsibility therefor. In that regard, when did the teachers unions apologize for the harm they have caused kids the past two years? I imagine many Americans would forgive these errors and sins but not until the apologies have first been expressed, and without any buts or caveats.

Expand full comment