The Blog

News and stories from the campaign to reclaim individual responsibility and liberate Americans from bureaucracy and legal fear.

Blog — Education

University buys bulletproof whiteboards for its professors

by Lenore Skenazy

Reading and writing and richocheting? University of Maryland at Eastern Shore just spent $59,800 on bulletproof whiteboards for its classrooms. This begs a whole lot of questions:


  1. Who gets to stand behind the shield? The professor? Or the kid who writes the most convincing, "Why I Deserve the Shield More than My Professor" essay?
  2. What do you want to bet the kid who writes the most convincing essay somehow ends up failing the class?
  3. Exactly how does a bulletproof whiteboard help even the person holding it? Weren't shields invented back when all you had to do was not get skewered by a lance? So, you could hold it in front of you but still peek around or over it? I mean, if you can't peek, how can you see where the enemy is?
  4. Alternatively: If you DO peek, and now your enemy has a gun and not a lance, doesn't that mean your head is as unprotected as a pumpkin on a spike?
  5. Who's the president of this university -- Ben Hur?
  6. Why are we even talking about a single shield making sense in a classroom full of students?
  7. More to the point, why are we even talking about this, period? As tragic and senseless as the Sandy Hook shooting was, the bigger picture is that America is really safe. Not perfectly safe -- nothing is. But the homicide rate is back at the level it was in (wait for it!) 1906.
  8. No one bought white board shields in 1906.
  9. Then again, no one watched CNN.
  10. Then again, no one does now either.
  11. Lists usually end at 10, so consider this more of a footnote: Shields for shooters are as weird and worst-case-scenario as buying helmets for all the students -- excuse me, for all the professors -- just in case of a falling meteor.
  12. Final final note: Which did happen last year, too. But somehow we manage to keep that danger in perspective.

Lenore Skenazy is a public speaker and the author of the book and blog “Free-Range Kids,” which launched the anti-helicopter parenting movement. She’s going to be posting here from time to time on issues of interest to Common Good supporters. As Lenore puts it, she’s ready to make “America the Home of the Brave again, not the Home of the Bureaucrats So Stupid that a Hazmat Crew Gets Called to a High School When a Student Brings in a Mercury Thermometer. (Which really happened a few months back, in Florida.)” And here’s her outrage of the week. Chime in!

Comment ›

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman: Rethink special education

In the Wall Street Journal, school attorney Miriam Kurtzig Freedman takes on the thorny issue of special education--the $100-billion-dollar program that needs a closer look:

Very little work has been done to establish how inclusion [of special education students in regular classrooms] affects regular students—whether they are average, English-language learners, advanced, poor or homeless. Studies seem to support the social benefits of mainstreaming for children with disabilities and possibly for regular-education students, but what about the effect on their academic progress?

Teachers may tell you (privately) that inclusion often leads them to slow down and simplify classroom teaching. Yet the system is entrenched and politically correct. Many parents remain silent. Some quietly remove their kids from public schools.

Can this be anything but very bad for America? Our schools thrive only with a diverse student population and engaged parents—not with the departure of those who choose to leave.

New thinking on special ed is desperately needed. As Philip K. Howard wrote in The Atlantic:

Today, special ed consumes 20 percent of the total K-12 budget in America. Programs for gifted children get less than half of one percent, and pre-K education gets almost nothing. Is this a sensible allocation of education dollars?

Read Freedman's full piece here, and read more about Common Good's education proposals here.

Comment ›

School lockdown overboard

By Lenore Skenazy

Oh no -- there's a stranger walking into that school! Dozens of them in fact! We can't have THAT, can we?

Well, we always have. It's called voting. And yet, more and more schools are saying no to the age-old tradition of hosting elections in the school gym. It's a "risk" they say they cannot take.

Except that, as far as I can tell, it has never posed any risk at all -- and still doesn't.

Vrouwenkiesrecht / Votes for women

This article from the Press-Citizen details how Election Day has already changed in Iowa. Only 7% of voting is still done in public schools. "The pressure to move polling places out of schools intensified following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.," writes the reporter, Emily Schettler. And yet -- what is the connection? One terrible thing happens in one place and suddenly all voters in all schools are regarded as potential terrorists?
The article adds that although there haven't been any serious problems in Iowa during elections "officials pushing the moves say they want to avoid future issues."

Which, in case you hadn't noticed, is an argument you could use to outlaw absolutely anything. "While there haven't been any problems with kids tripping on shoelaces, we want to avoid future issues by requiring velcro." "So far, no children have violently collided during Square Dance instruction, but we want to..."

Already one county has had to spend $8000 for polling space, since the schools -- free and paid for by our taxes -- were no longer available.  So now kids are missing out on a nice chunk of change that could be used for, I don't know, maybe copies of the CONSTITUTION? And they don't even get to see adults exercising the inalienable right that makes America such a beacon of fear.


As we've discussed before: There's safety and there's sanity. Ideally the two go hand in hand. But when it comes to kids and schools, it feels like they aren't even allowed in the same building.

Lenore Skenazy is a public speaker and the author of the book and blog “Free-Range Kids,” which launched the anti-helicopter parenting movement. She’s going to be posting here from time to time on issues of interest to Common Good supporters. As Lenore puts it, she’s ready to make “America the Home of the Brave again, not the Home of the Bureaucrats So Stupid that a Hazmat Crew Gets Called to a High School When a Student Brings in a Mercury Thermometer. (Which really happened a few months back, in Florida.)” And here’s her outrage of the week. Chime in!

Comment ›

School “security theater”

The following is an excerpt, by Lenore Skenazy, from Common Good's online forum on Risk and Legal Fear in Schools.

The worst massacre at a school did not happen last year at Sandy Hook Elementary. It happened in 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan. A disgruntled (to say the least) school board member didn't want to pay any more school construction taxes. In protest, he blew up the school, his car, himself, four other adults--and 38 school kids.

Almost double the number at Sandy Hook.

Afterward, do you know what precautions schools all around the country immediately took?

None. Because administrators, politicians and parents did not see the tragedy as part of a huge new threat. They saw it for what it was: A bizarre anomaly. They understood that, for the most part, kids were still very safe at school.

That's a kind of perspective we have lost, in an era when we've been trained to automatically think these two thoughts:

1 - If anything bad happens to any child, anywhere, it is likely to happen to my kid, tomorrow.

2 - If we are proactive to the point of paranoid, we can achieve 100% safety.

The result has been a rash of excessive, expensive and sometimes exasperating new measures designed to make schools safer...that don't. My favorite is the reading specialist who told me that ever since Sandy Hook, when she goes to a classroom to help out, the door is always locked. As she is not trusted with a key, she has to knock on the door. But before the teacher WHO KNOWS HER can open it, the reading lady has to say the secret password.

Is it "Security Theater"?

Actually, I have one other favorite. There's a school in rural Oregon that has taught its teachers: If you ever hear a fire alarm but don't feel any heat, lock the kids in your room, because it COULD be a madman trying to lure kids into the hall.

Frankly, if I was a madman and I knew that school's M.O., I'd set fire to the building.

The problem is that when people are afraid, they can't think straight. And in an era when we are encouraged by the media and our lawmakers to be constantly fearful and tearful -- "Could your school be NEXT?" -- we are stuck in panic mode. We throw everything we've got at the problem, without even's not a problem.

The job for those of us still thinking rationally, then, is simple. We must help parents, principals and politicians re-gain that old-fashioned, 1927 perspective that understood: Sometimes bad things happen, but that doesn't mean all kids are in constant danger. What's more, over-the-top security measures don't even make them safer, in part because madmen work around obstacles, but also in great part because the kids are already very safe.

Just not 100% safe.

Comment ›

School fear and informal relationships

The following is an excerpt, by Nancy McDermott, from Common Good's online forum on Risk and Legal Fear in Schools.

The most important point we need to understand about the fearful climate in our schools is that is does not originate with parents or the public. It is a by-product of the decline of informal relationships between people in the schools and people in communities they serve.

Informal relationships are those hundreds of sustained, casual interactions between teachers and students, parents and local schools for which there is no guidance, policy or code of conduct. They may seem trivial, but over time they create just enough mutual familiarity and confidence for people to set aside their emotional response to risk (any is too great) in favor of a more reasonable approach.  Without these relationships, cooperation and trust is impossible.

This erosion of informality is occurring in many areas of social life but has accelerated in schools partly because of the way education is now seen as a therapeutic tool for meeting social policy objectives and partly as a consequence of the new levels of bureaucracy that come with school reform.

Over the past 30 years the scope of education has expanded beyond traditional subject matters into areas like sex education, character education and self-esteem. By attempting to teach what children really only learn over time and in context, schools have made students, teachers and their parents, hyper-aware and even paranoid about how they conduct interpersonal relationships. School administrators who intervene to prevent children making “best friends” are a sad example of how this over-think makes authentic relationships more difficult and actually pathologizes them.

The process of reform has exacerbated the problem by making schools less accountable to their local communities and more beholden to state and federal authorities. Tax levies seldom raise enough to fund annual budgets. As a result, school districts are forced to cobble together the remainder of their funding from a combination of state aid, entitlement and competitive grants like Race To The Top. Each source of funding brings a new set of requirement for schools: requirements for measuring and reporting progress; codes of conduct that must be followed; targets and outcomes that must be achieved. Principals, teachers and administrators are left with little discretion and expected to follow procedure rather than use their judgment or initiative. In this context, parental concerns become largely irrelevant.

This juridification of experience at every level of our schools is profoundly demoralizing. Simple disciplinary matters tend to escalate beyond all reason. That children are now regularly suspended from school for possessing guns the size of toothpicks is testament to institutionalized mistrust that has taken on a life of its own.

Informal relationships have not gone away and they are still incredibly important. This is why the actions of a few motivated principals, teachers or groups of parents can make such a positive impact in individual cases. But they are under pressure and will need to be nurtured to survive. The challenge for policy makers is that they may of necessity have no positive role to play.

Comment ›

The cult of caution

The following is an excerpt, by Frederick Hess, from Common Good's online forum on Risk and Legal Fear in Schools.

The cult of caution has gone too far.  It’s not just schools. Our litigious society is rife with examples of over-the-top efforts to defend against liability and lawsuits.  But schools are especially susceptible. First, they’re public institutions.  School board members, superintendents, and state officials know they can catch grief for a single unfortunate incident, so they have enormous incentive to do everything they can to prevent those while underestimating the costs in terms of time, money, and focus.  Second, we want to protect kids from bad things.

Consider President Obama’s response to Sandy Hook. After any tragedy, there’s a natural desire to order educators to ramp up the safety quotient - without much regard for distractions or tradeoffs.  Each mandate is reasonable enough, but the cumulative result is that each requires little slivers of training, time, money, and paperwork from teachers and school staff. Everyone then bemoans the fact that too many schools and teachers need to develop more of a laser focus on student achievement.

The President proposed to train 14,000 school officials and law enforcement officers in how to handle active shooter situations. Here's the dilemma: a dollop of training is unlikely to make any difference in the rare event of a school shooter, while more time means focusing on a scenario with lightning-strike likelihood rather than things that are more likely to save or improve lots of lives every day.

Similarly, the president wanted to require that schools receiving federal funds for safety develop and practice emergency plans. While more than 80% of schools already have response plans for a shooting, the White House lamented that only 52 percent had drilled their students in the past year. Though these drills may be a nice idea, they can also create chaos, breed mischief, disrupt carefully planned lessons, and consume a half-hour or more of instructional time. For all that, the likelihood that any given school will ever employ its plan is infinitesimal, and the odds that anything short of routine practice will actually result in saved lives is modest at best.

The president proposed a tiny smattering of dollars, $15 million, to fund "mental health first aid" training for teachers and others who work with youths to detect signs of mental illness (the money was almost entirely symbolic--perhaps $150 for each of the nation's schools.)  Educators would likely get a few hours of desultory training, just enough to waste their time without making a difference. Or, if they actually got the requisite training and support (with the $150 per school!), the time spent would likely come at the expense of the time they have to prepare instruction, craft assessments, monitor student learning, and so forth.

Protecting kids from bad stuff is important. But it’s also important to recognize that these protections steal time and energy from teaching and learning.  And, for the vast majority of children, the biggest danger is not some dramatic incident but the silent, invisible threat of a mediocre education.

Comment ›

Let children play

The following is an excerpt, by Megan Rosker, from Common Good's online forum on Risk and Legal Fear in Schools.

Our country was founded on the common credence of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". These words were to be our guiding principle as our country evolved.  Now, in its adolescent years, our country has fallen victim to over-regulation.  I am a mother, a teacher, a play advocate and a writer.  I get concerned when I see our children’s freedom continuously imposed upon by the regulations of heavy handed government and school officials.

Children should be freely engaging in dodgeball and kickball.  They should be recklessly playing cowboys and hanging upside down from the monkey bars.  These activities guide children to explore the world, learn personal and social boundaries and teach important physical developmental skills.  However, such activities are deemed too dangerous. To help our children "survive" we have imposed thousands of regulations on teachers and students.

Just because our children are too young to fight for their right of expression, doesn’t mean they don’t have as much of a right to express themselves as adults.  The number one way children express themselves is through play.  Unlike adults who can hold discussions and work out ideas and problems through a variety of different thought processes and procedures, children really only have one means of expression, play. When we take this away from them, we impede the most natural way in which they interact with the world. Play is truly unique to children and must be understood as something sacred to a child, not an extracurricular act that can be discarded when deemed too dangerous.  Play engages every part of a child creative, psychological and emotional being.  It is imperative to healthy childhood development.

Play naturally encourages risk.  When we take it away we aren’t allowing for a healthy amount of risk.  On my own Freedom to Play Scale of one to ten, where one is the Play Gestapo and ten is complete anarchy, schools should be functioning at a seven.  This means there are rules to keep children safe, but there is still plenty of exploration too.

Adults have laws to keep ourselves safe as well. We don’t allow theft, rape or murder.  These crimes encroach upon the freedom of the victim and therefore we don’t allow them.  These laws, however, do not impose on the expression of the victim, only the perpetrator and only on the negative action he has taken against another human being.

School regulations must take the same approach.  Children should not be hurting one another, but they should be playing imaginatively. Sometimes imaginative play is rough, like playing with sticks as guns and swords.  Roughness does not mean danger, however, and we must carefully walk a line between allowing expression and allowing children to be hurt.

Tragic things happen in our world.  We cannot pen laws, however, that impose our adult fears on kids.  The tragedies that transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary or Columbine High School are not child problems.  They are problems transpired by the lack of care by adults for children.  It is never the responsibility of the child to fix our social problems and likewise our children should not be shouldering the fear that accompanies our social problems.  Adult problems that must be dealt with and understood away from the presence of our children. When we allow the fear of a few adults to influence our whole society, then we have just stolen the freedom of our society at large and thus we will all be enslaved by the emotional problems of a few select individuals. When this happens, we lose our most important rights, in this case, play.

Comment ›

Schools follow social trends

The following is an excerpt, by Walter Olson, from Common Good's online forum on Risk and Legal Fear in Schools.

When they "err on the side of safety" in absurd ways, schools reflect trends in the wider society. Parents, lawmakers and influential opinion leaders have been sending off fearful and risk-averse signals for a long while now. Consider:

  • Already, by ten years ago, British commentator Jenny Cunningham could write that "A significant body of research evidence now indicates that there has been a drastic decline in children's outdoor activity and unsupervised play. For example, it has been calculated that the free play range of children -- the radius around the home to which children can roam alone -- has, for nine-year-olds in the UK, shrunk to a ninth of what it was in 1970. Perhaps most damaging is that a climate has been created in which all unsupervised play is regarded as high risk, and parents or teachers who allow it are seen as irresponsible." Cunningham notes that families now tend to see the risks of being hit by traffic or (far less likely) abducted by strangers as ruling out outdoor play. "Yet, despite the increasing levels of worry, in reality children have never been safer." Sound familiar? (Play On)
  • Consider the wild legislative overreaction of the U.S. Congress -- ratified by then-President George W. Bush -- in passing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 in response to scattered reports of toys that failed to meet existing safety standards. In attempting to bar any levels whatsoever of lead or bendy-plastic "phthalates" from getting into anything designated as a kids' product, lawmakers wound up banning a ridiculously broad array of new and used goods, including classic children's books in libraries (can you be sure all the inks in the illustrations are lead-free?), bicycles and recreation vehicles (the valves might include brass with some lead alloy) and vintage kids'  jeans and winter coats in thrift stores (the zippers likewise). In a perfectly typical, if mind-boggling, application of the law, education-supply companies were told they could not furnish rocks for study in geology classes unless they tested them first to make sure they did not contain lead, the way a great many ordinary rocks laying around outside do. The good news for science teachers was that it was still okay to hang up posters with pictures of rocks on them. While Congress eventually did pass a followup bill aimed at fixing some of CPSIA's more amazing excesses, that came too late to save many small makers of children's' products that had been driven out of business in the mean time. (CPSIA on the rocks)
  • Or consider schools as places of employment. Lenore Skenazy passes along the story (noted at my Overlawyered site) of the teacher who discovered that innocuous household supplies -- baby wipes, dish-cleaning liquid -- when kept in a classroom had to be accompanied in each case by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) spelling out the risks of each. (MSDS sheets have been giving way more recently to a replacement known as SDS.) Readers wrote in to say this was nothing specific to schools -- workplaces of any sort that wanted to be sure of compliance with the law have to manage large assemblages of MSDS sheets (covering, for example, each variety of wood in a carpentry shop) even when the risk of toxic overdose or explosion seems fanciful at best. Even bottles of distilled water can't stay on hand if lacking their MSDS. (Cleaning supplies in the classroom? Your papers, please)

If these are the trends in the outside society, how likely is it that schools will be able to resist?

Comment ›

Dodgeball danger revisited

By Lenore Skenazy

Score one for dodgeball!

A New Hampshire school had outlawed the game last March while a committee was convened to study the controversial issue (clearly right up there with Guantanamo). The problem arose when -- surprise --  a parent complained of a child being bullied during the game.

Of course, the rules of dodgeball dictate that pretty much ALL children are bullied by the game. That's the whole POINT. And considering the school only allows foam balls -- goodbye big red balls and big red welts -- getting "out" didn't even physically hurt anymore. The sting was strictly psychic.

Still, the school board voted 4 to 1 to suspend the game while it investigated. The outlook seemed dire.  But darned if, three months later, the board didn't decide it had overreacted. That is, it DID decide it HAD overreacted.

Knock me over with a feather! (A foam feather, please, with a bed of wood chips below me.) Sometimes I fear so much for common sense, I can't even believe when it wins. But it did, fair and square. The classic game will be reinstated next fall...with some new caveats.

The first one is that any kid who doesn't want to participate can choose an alternative activity. Believe it or not, I always hated dodgeball -- though clearly I will defend to the death kids' right to play it. So the first opt-outer would be me.

I'd hope they'd let all non-participants head off to a cafe to talk about the pitfalls of public policy during gym period.

The other caveat is that the school is giving all its "human target" games new, P.C. names. So, according to WHDH Channel 7 NBC News, the game "Slaughter" becomes "Numero Uno," while "Prison Ball" becomes "Repair Shop."

And I guess "War" becomes "Peace"? Didn't I read that somewhere long ago?

Sigh.  Just when you think common sense is about to win...a foam ball knocks it out.

Lenore Skenazy is a public speaker and the author of the book and blog “Free-Range Kids,” which launched the anti-helicopter parenting movement. She’s going to be posting here from time to time on issues of interest to Common Good supporters. As Lenore puts it, she’s ready to make “America the Home of the Brave again, not the Home of the Bureaucrats So Stupid that a Hazmat Crew Gets Called to a High School When a Student Brings in a Mercury Thermometer. (Which really happened a few months back, in Florida.)” And here’s her outrage of the week. Chime in!

Comment ›

Ten unsupervised minutes

By Lenore Skenazy

Folks -- Take a look at this article, about the danger/injustice/affront of not allowing kids into school 10 minutes early. That means for 10 minutes or so, middle schoolers arriving before the school officially opens must wait OUTSIDE! Unsupervised! Imagine that!

This mom can't...without hyperventillating:

Students Arriving at School Early Forced to Wait Outside

Despite an e-blast sent out about exactly what time students should be dropped off at Eisenhower Intermediate for extra help before school, one parent is still finding students standing outside because they arrive too early.

Parent Lisa Weinstock said at Tuesday’s board of education meeting that she drops her child off for early-morning help at the school, and has found students standing outside alone because they are not allowed in the building before a certain time.

"I saw students standing outside unsupervised," she said. "When I called parents to ask if they knew they were not supposed to do this, they were appalled their children were left standing outside."

Appalled? really? Can we save being appalled for something a little more worthy, like kids not having enough to eat?

But, Weinstock said, there was an email from Eisenhower principal Joseph Diskin saying that students will not be allowed into the building earlier than the time individual teachers have designated for before-school help to begin.

"He said do not drop off students earlier than the specified times," she said.

This makes me almost physically ill. I want to ask the mom, "How about having your kids spend a week in Sudan? Or Syria? Or Somalia? Have them come back and  THEN we'll see what 10 minutes outside Eisenhower Middle School feels like. Probably pretty non-threatening."

Lenore Skenazy is the author of the book and blog “Free-Range Kids,” which launched the anti-helicopter parenting movement. She’s going to be posting here from time to time on issues of interest to Common Good supporters. As Lenore puts it, she’s ready to make “America the Home of the Brave again, not the Home of the Bureaucrats So Stupid that a Hazmat Crew Gets Called to a High School When a Student Brings in a Mercury Thermometer. (Which really happened a few months back, in Florida.)” And here’s her outrage of the week. Chime in!

Comment ›

 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›