I reviewed the assessment, vetted the questions, looked for confusing wording and weak distractors, and examined patterns in student responses. I paid particular attention to questions that produced unusually high error rates compared with the rest of the exam, and I even removed items that appeared problematic. I wanted to be certain the assessment measured what students actually knew rather than their ability to navigate a poorly written question. Reflective teachers do that. We ask ourselves whether the assessment was fair, whether we taught the material effectively, whether our expectations were clear, and whether students had what they needed to be successful.

Somewhere in the middle of that statistical gauntlet, however, another realization surfaced: maybe it is not entirely me. Maybe we need to examine the system that prepared students to arrive here. That realization became even clearer when I saw the reactions of some of my highest-performing students.

When High-Achieving Students Experience Failure

A few of the students who performed poorly on the exam are students who are accustomed to doing well academically. These are students who have traditionally earned strong grades, students who see themselves—and who are often seen by others—as “good students.” So, when they received a failing grade, some were devastated. Their disappointment was not casual. For some, it seemed as though one poor test grade had suddenly challenged their entire academic identity.

That reaction made me stop and think, especially because when we talked about preparation, another truth surfaced: they had not adequately prepared. That distinction matters. They were capable of learning the material, they were intelligent enough to succeed in the course, and the assessment was not beyond their ability. However, several had not invested the time, study, review, and deliberate preparation necessary for a college-level exam. The preparation was lacking, but the expectation of success remained.

That is where the lesson became bigger than Environmental Science.

Ability Does Not Guarantee Success

There is a dangerous misconception that can develop in high-performing students: If I am smart, I should be able to succeed without struggling very much. For years, some students can rely heavily on natural ability. They listen in class, remember information quickly, complete assignments with relative ease, and perform well on assessments without extensive preparation. Because that approach continues to produce good grades, they understandably assume it will continue working.

Eventually, however, students encounter a course, an exam, a professor, or a circumstance that requires more than intelligence. It requires discipline, preparation, time management, persistence, and a willingness to study material repeatedly instead of simply recognizing it. It requires the maturity to admit, I do not know this well enough yet, and then do something about it.

For some students, dual credit may be the first environment that exposes the difference between being naturally capable and being academically prepared. That can be an uncomfortable lesson, but it may also be one of the most valuable lessons we can allow them to learn.

Perhaps We Have Overemphasized Achievement and Underdeveloped Readiness

Our educational system places tremendous emphasis on student achievement. We monitor proficiency, analyze benchmark scores, celebrate honor rolls, identify advanced learners, and provide opportunities through honors, Advanced Placement, career academies, and dual enrollment. All of those things can be incredibly valuable, but I am beginning to wonder whether we place enough emphasis on developing the whole student who must eventually function independently in those environments.

Many students are absolutely intelligent enough to complete and succeed in dual credit courses, but intelligence is only one part of readiness. Some students still lack the discipline to prepare when no one is standing over them. Some lack the maturity to understand that wanting a certain grade does not automatically produce that grade. Some struggle emotionally when their performance does not match the image they have always held of themselves, while others have not yet developed the resilience necessary to receive a disappointing result, evaluate what went wrong, change their behavior, and try again.

None of that means they are incapable. It means they are still developing, and perhaps our responsibility is to acknowledge that development rather than assuming strong academic performance automatically means a student is fully prepared for every aspect of college-level work.

Mental and Emotional Readiness Matter Too

We often talk about academic readiness as though it can be measured entirely by a test score. We ask whether the student reads at a certain level, has completed Algebra II, met a benchmark, or earned a high enough GPA. Those indicators matter, but they do not tell us everything about whether a student is prepared to navigate the realities of higher education.

What happens when the student earns a 62 after years of making As and Bs? Can that student separate a poor grade from personal worth? Can the student hear feedback without interpreting it as criticism of who they are? Can the student acknowledge, “I did not prepare enough,” instead of immediately searching for an external explanation? Most importantly, can the student experience disappointment, reflect on it, recover, and move forward?

That is emotional readiness, and it matters tremendously. College and adulthood will eventually introduce moments when effort does not produce the desired result. Applications will be rejected, interviews will not result in offers, professors will return papers covered in comments, deadlines will be missed, promotions will go to someone else, and projects will fail. If students have never been taught how to process disappointment, they may enter adulthood academically accomplished but emotionally unequipped for the realities of life.

We Must Teach Students the Difference Between Failure and Feedback

One of the lessons I want my students to understand is that a failing grade is not a declaration of who they are. It is data. A test score does not say that a student is unintelligent, does not belong in the class, or cannot succeed in college. It simply says, This is where you performed on this assessment, based on what you knew and how you prepared at this moment.

Once students begin to understand that distinction, the conversation can shift from devastation to reflection. Instead of simply asking, “Why did I fail?” they can begin asking better questions: How did I prepare? How many days before the exam did I begin studying? Did I actually review my notes, or did I simply look over them? Could I explain the concepts without using my notes? Did I ask questions when I realized I did not understand something? Did I use the resources that were available to me? What will I do differently next time?

Those questions build ownership, and ownership is one of the most important characteristics of a successful college student. Students need to understand that accountability does not diminish their intelligence. In fact, the willingness to honestly evaluate their own choices may be one of the clearest signs that they are becoming mature learners.

Have We Protected Students From Productive Struggle?

This experience also made me wonder whether, in our effort to support students, we have sometimes protected them from the very experiences that develop resilience. We remind, extend deadlines, offer retakes, allow corrections, provide study guides, send messages home, chase missing work, and give second chances—sometimes third, fourth, and fifth chances.

There is absolutely a place for grace in education. There is a place for intervention, support, remediation, and second chances. However, support should eventually produce independence. If students are always rescued before they experience the consequences of inadequate preparation, when do they learn that preparation matters? If every disappointing grade is immediately erased, when do students develop the emotional skills to cope with disappointment? If adults continually manage students’ responsibilities, when do students learn to manage themselves?

We cannot spend twelve years catching students every time they stumble and then suddenly expect them to know how to recover when they reach college. Somewhere along the way, we have to allow students to struggle safely enough to learn how to get back up. Productive struggle is not punishment; sometimes it is preparation.

Dual Credit Exists in an Interesting Space

Dual credit students occupy a unique position because they are still high school students. They are teenagers who are continuing to develop socially, emotionally, and cognitively, yet they are enrolled in college courses carrying college expectations. That means dual credit cannot simply be about exposing students to more difficult content. It should also become an opportunity to explicitly teach the habits and behaviors required for college success.

Students need to learn how to study for a college exam, read a chapter strategically, manage their time when several assignments are due, communicate professionally with an instructor, and ask for help before they are in crisis. They also need opportunities to learn how to balance academics, extracurricular activities, employment, family responsibilities, and rest. Perhaps most importantly, they need to know what to do when they study and still do not earn the grade they wanted.

Those skills deserve intentional instruction. Perhaps that is the missing curriculum—the one that does not always appear in state standards, pacing guides, or benchmark reports, but ultimately determines whether students can sustain success when the safety nets begin to disappear.

We Need to Redefine What “College Ready” Means

Maybe a college-ready student is not simply a student who can handle advanced academic content. Perhaps college readiness also means being able to manage time without constant reminders, prepare even when preparation is inconvenient, complete work without someone chasing you, and accept responsibility when your choices affect your outcomes.

It also means knowing how to ask for help appropriately, respond to feedback without shutting down, manage disappointment, persist through difficulty, recover from failure, and understand that potential means very little without consistent effort. These skills are not extras. They are foundational parts of becoming an independent learner.

What Happens Next in My Classroom?

My students will not be defined by their first exam. We will review the data, identify content gaps, and discuss how they studied. We will talk openly about preparation, time management, test-taking, responsibility, and the difference between not understanding the material and simply not preparing adequately for the assessment.

For the students who were devastated by their grades, I especially want them to understand that they can be disappointed without being defeated. A poor performance does not erase everything they have accomplished, but it should teach them something. If they were not adequately prepared, the answer is not immediately to question whether they are smart enough. The answer may simply be to prepare differently.

That lesson may ultimately prove more valuable than anything I could teach them about ecosystems, energy transfer, or environmental systems. Eventually, every gifted student meets something that talent alone cannot carry. When that moment comes, they need more than intelligence. They need habits, discipline, emotional regulation, resilience, ownership, and the willingness to adjust.

The Larger Question for Education

I will continue examining my teaching, reviewing my assessments, and asking whether I provided students with the tools they needed to be successful. That is my responsibility as an educator, and reflective teaching demands that I continue looking at my own practice before placing responsibility elsewhere.

At the same time, I believe our educational system must be willing to examine a larger question: Are we preparing students to earn college credit, or are we preparing them to function successfully as college students? Those are not necessarily the same thing. Perhaps the most important work we can do is help students understand that academic success is not simply a reflection of how intelligent they are. It is often the result of what they repeatedly choose to do with that intelligence.

Potential can open doors, and achievement can create opportunities. But discipline, maturity, emotional resilience, and preparation are often what determine whether students are truly ready to walk through those doors—and remain there.

Read more

Read more

Somewhere along the way, in our pursuit of higher test scores, stronger accountability ratings, improved school report cards, and measurable student outcomes, we began taking one of the most important ingredients out of teaching: the teacher. In some classrooms, professional judgment has slowly been replaced by prescribed language, rigid pacing, and instructional expectations that leave little room for educators to actually respond to the students sitting in front of them.

And I keep coming back to one question: When did we stop trusting teachers to teach?

Think about how strange this would sound in almost any other profession. We do not walk into a physician’s office and expect the doctor to follow a minute-by-minute script regardless of the symptoms presented by the patient. We do not tell a doctor, “At minute seven, ask this exact question, and whether the patient is still in pain or not, move on to the next step.” We expect physicians to use their education, experience, training, and professional judgment to assess the individual sitting in front of them and make decisions accordingly.

The same is true for attorneys. We do not hand every attorney an identical script and require them to use the exact same questions, arguments, and responses with every client. Different situations require different approaches. Different people require different responses. That professional is expected to understand the law, understand the desired outcome, analyze the circumstances, and determine the most appropriate path forward.

So why have we become so comfortable denying teachers that same level of professional respect?

Teaching Has Never Been One-Size-Fits-All

Teaching is deeply human work, and human beings are unpredictable. A lesson plan can tell you what should happen. A curriculum can identify what students should learn. A pacing guide can provide a reasonable timeline, and standards can clearly communicate the skills and knowledge students are expected to master. However, none of those documents can tell a teacher exactly what will happen once twenty-five individual human beings walk through the classroom door.

One student may have mastered yesterday’s concept before the teacher finishes the opening review, while another student may still be struggling with the prerequisite skill necessary to understand today’s lesson. One student may need a visual representation, another may understand better after hearing an analogy, and another may need to physically manipulate something before the concept finally clicks. A teacher may ask a question expecting a thirty-second response and suddenly discover a misconception that requires ten additional minutes of instruction.

That is teaching.

A good teacher is constantly making decisions. Teachers are watching facial expressions, listening to the language students use, noticing who is participating and who has become unusually quiet, analyzing misconceptions, adjusting examples, asking follow-up questions, slowing down when necessary, accelerating when appropriate, and making instructional decisions in real time. The lesson may have been planned the night before, but the actual teaching happens in the moment.

You cannot completely script that, and quite frankly, we should not want to.

A scripted curriculum may provide consistency, but consistency should never be confused with quality. A teacher can follow every word on a page and still fail to reach students. Conversely, an effective teacher may deviate from the suggested language, use a different example, spend additional time on a difficult concept, or change the activity altogether and produce significantly deeper student understanding.

The goal should not be for every teacher to sound the same. The goal should be for every student to learn.

Structure Is Not the Enemy

I want to be very clear because conversations about teacher autonomy are sometimes misinterpreted. I am not advocating for classrooms without standards, curriculum, accountability, pacing expectations, common assessments, or instructional leadership. Teachers should not simply walk into a classroom and decide to teach whatever feels interesting that particular day.

Strong curriculum matters. High-quality instructional materials matter. Clear learning targets matter. Common expectations matter. Data matters. Coaching matters. Professional development matters. Teachers, particularly those who are new to the profession, often benefit tremendously from structured resources that help them understand what effective instruction can look like.

But there is a tremendous difference between providing teachers with structure and stripping teachers of professional judgment.

There is a difference between saying, “Here are the standards students must master,” and saying, “Here are the exact words you must use while teaching those standards.” There is a difference between providing a model lesson and requiring every classroom to reproduce that lesson verbatim. There is a difference between instructional alignment and instructional control.

Somehow, education has increasingly blurred those lines.

The best instructional resources should function as tools, not handcuffs. A strong curriculum should provide teachers with a foundation from which they can make informed instructional decisions. It should help teachers understand the learning progression, identify essential content, anticipate common misconceptions, and provide research-based strategies. It should not require teachers to abandon everything they know about their students simply because the script says it is time to move on.

The Contradiction We Rarely Discuss

Perhaps the greatest irony is that we tell teachers constantly that they must differentiate instruction. We tell them to meet students where they are, analyze formative assessment data, respond to individual learning needs, build culturally responsive classrooms, create engaging lessons, establish meaningful relationships, encourage critical thinking, and provide multiple pathways for students to demonstrate mastery.

Then, in the very next breath, we hand them a script and tell them not to deviate from it.

How exactly are teachers supposed to accomplish both?

You cannot genuinely demand differentiation while simultaneously eliminating instructional decision-making. Differentiation requires professional judgment. It requires a teacher to recognize that the planned approach is not working for a particular student or group of students and make an adjustment. It requires flexibility.

You cannot tell a teacher to “meet students where they are” while also telling that teacher that regardless of where the students actually are, everyone must be on page 42 by Thursday afternoon.

Those philosophies do not coexist well.

And when they are forced together, teachers are often placed in an impossible position. They are accountable for student outcomes, but they are given increasingly less control over the instructional decisions that influence those outcomes.

What Are We Communicating to Teachers?

Every policy communicates something, even when that message is unintended. When teachers are repeatedly told exactly what to say, exactly how to say it, exactly how long they should spend saying it, and exactly what every classroom should look like, the underlying message is difficult to ignore: We do not trust your professional judgment.

We do not trust your training enough to allow you to determine how best to explain a concept. We do not trust your experience enough to allow you to recognize when students need additional time. We do not trust your knowledge of your students enough to allow you to alter an example, change an activity, or approach the material differently.

That message has consequences.

Then educational leaders are surprised when teacher morale decreases. They are surprised when creativity disappears from classrooms. They are surprised when highly capable educators become reluctant to take instructional risks. They are surprised when teachers begin describing themselves as curriculum deliverers rather than educators, or when experienced teachers decide they would rather leave the profession than spend the remainder of their careers being micromanaged.

But autonomy matters because ownership matters.

People tend to invest differently in work they feel they actually own. Teachers are no exception. When educators have a voice in how they teach, they are more likely to think deeply about their practice, reflect on what worked, make thoughtful adjustments, and continue developing their craft.

If everything is predetermined for them, we should not be surprised when some eventually stop thinking like professionals and begin operating like employees whose primary goal is simply to remain compliant.

That is not teacher development. That is professional conditioning.

Accountability and Autonomy Can Coexist

Trusting teachers does not mean abandoning accountability. I have spent enough years in education, both as a teacher and as an administrator, to know that accountability is necessary. Teachers should absolutely be responsible for providing quality instruction. Administrators should observe classrooms. Student data should be reviewed. Instructional practices should be evaluated. Feedback should be provided, and ineffective teaching should be addressed.

Teacher autonomy should never become an excuse for poor planning, low expectations, or ineffective instruction.

However, there is a profound difference between holding professionals accountable for the quality of their work and controlling every aspect of how they perform that work.

Accountability should focus on whether students are learning, whether instruction is aligned to standards, whether students are appropriately challenged, whether classrooms are intellectually engaging, and whether teachers are growing professionally. Accountability should not simply become an exercise in determining whether every teacher used the same slide, asked the same question, or reached the same section of the lesson at the same exact time.

Give teachers the destination. Provide strong resources. Establish clear expectations. Give meaningful feedback. Offer coaching when support is needed. Analyze results. Intervene when necessary.

But allow qualified educators some freedom in determining the best route for the students sitting in front of them.

Because sometimes the teacher standing in that classroom knows something the curriculum developer sitting hundreds of miles away cannot possibly know. That teacher knows the students. The teacher knows which explanation caused the room to light up yesterday. The teacher knows which student shuts down when called on publicly but will explain the entire concept during a quiet one-on-one conversation. The teacher knows when the class is ready to move forward and when everybody needs another day.

That knowledge has value.

We Also Have to Talk About Leadership

This conversation is not only about teachers. It is also about the responsibility of school leaders.

Administrators are under tremendous pressure. Test scores matter. District mandates exist. State accountability systems are real. School leaders are frequently expected to produce measurable academic growth while managing staffing shortages, student behavior, parent concerns, compliance requirements, teacher evaluations, budgets, safety, and an endless list of other responsibilities.

I understand why scripted programs can appear attractive. They create predictability. They create uniformity. They appear easier to monitor. If everyone is teaching the exact same lesson in the exact same way, leaders may feel they have reduced instructional variability.

But reducing variability is not always the same thing as improving instruction.

Sometimes the easiest classroom to monitor is not the classroom where the deepest learning is occurring.

Leadership requires more than creating systems that are easy to inspect. Leadership requires developing people. If we have teachers who cannot effectively teach without following a script word for word, then our long-term solution cannot simply be a better script. Our solution has to include better coaching, stronger professional learning communities, mentoring, modeling, constructive feedback, and genuine investment in teacher capacity.

The goal of instructional leadership should be to help teachers become so skilled that they can make increasingly sophisticated instructional decisions, not so dependent that they become afraid to make any decision that is not printed in the teacher edition.

What Happens to Innovation?

We love to use the word innovation in education. It appears in strategic plans, school improvement documents, grant applications, mission statements, and professional development sessions. We say we want innovative teachers who create engaging learning environments and prepare students for a changing world.

Innovation, however, requires freedom to think.

A teacher cannot truly innovate while constantly wondering whether changing one activity will place them out of compliance. Teachers cannot experiment thoughtfully with new approaches if they are afraid someone will walk into the classroom and ask why they are not on the prescribed slide.

If we want creative teachers, we have to create environments where thoughtful creativity is actually allowed.

Some of the most powerful learning experiences I have witnessed throughout my career did not occur because someone perfectly followed a script. They occurred because a teacher recognized an opportunity and responded to it. A student asked an unexpected question. A discussion became deeper than planned. A teacher connected the concept to something happening in students’ lives. The lesson shifted, and learning became more meaningful.

Those moments are difficult to schedule.

They are even harder to script.

A Reflection for School Leaders

School leaders have to be willing to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions. Are we building instructional systems that genuinely support teachers, or have we created systems primarily designed to control them? Have we confused teacher compliance with teacher effectiveness? Have we become so concerned with consistency that we have unintentionally eliminated creativity? Are our instructional practices actually developing teachers, or are they simply teaching teachers how to follow directions more efficiently?

There is another question I think every administrator should ask: Would I want to teach under the instructional system I am asking my teachers to operate within?

That question changes things.

Would I want someone walking into my classroom with a checklist, concerned primarily about whether I had reached the appropriate slide rather than whether my students were thinking deeply? Would I want my professional judgment questioned every time I adjusted a lesson to meet the needs of the students in front of me? Would I feel respected as a professional if my education, training, experience, and knowledge of my students were consistently secondary to a script?

If the answer is no, then perhaps we need to reconsider what we are asking teachers to endure.

Leadership is not about creating classrooms that are easier to control. Leadership is about creating the conditions where excellent teaching can flourish.

The Call to Action

If we truly want stronger schools, then we have to return professional trust to the conversation.

We need to hire good teachers, provide them with strong induction, invest in meaningful professional development, coach them consistently, give them access to quality instructional materials, establish clear expectations, and hold them accountable for student learning. At the same time, we need to respect their ability to make professional decisions about how to move students toward mastery.

We need curriculum that supports teachers rather than silences them.

We need administrators who coach rather than merely monitor.

We need district leaders who understand that instructional consistency does not require instructional sameness.

We need professional development that strengthens teachers’ ability to think, adjust, analyze, and respond rather than simply training them to deliver someone else’s lesson.

Most importantly, we need to stop claiming we want teachers to be leaders, innovators, thinkers, relationship builders, and instructional experts while creating systems that require them to function like robots.

Let teachers bring their personalities into their classrooms. Let them use the analogy they know will connect with their students. Let them spend another fifteen minutes on a concept when formative assessment reveals that the students are not ready to move forward. Let them accelerate when students demonstrate mastery. Let them create. Let them question. Let them adjust.

Let them teach.

Chapter 1280 Reflection

After nearly two decades in education, one thing I know for certain is that excellent teaching cannot be reduced to a script. Curriculum can provide direction. Standards can define expectations. Assessment can measure progress. Administrators can provide accountability. Coaches can strengthen practice. But the person standing in front of students still matters.

The teacher matters.

Their judgment matters. Their relationships with students matter. Their creativity matters. Their content knowledge matters. Their ability to recognize what is happening in a classroom and respond in real time matters.

If we believe our teachers are incapable of making sound instructional decisions, then we need to ask harder questions about how we hire, prepare, develop, coach, and retain educators. Taking away their autonomy may create temporary compliance, but it will never create professional excellence.

Maybe the solution to inconsistent instruction is not to control teachers more tightly.

Maybe the solution is to develop teachers more intentionally.

Because ultimately, the question is bigger than whether scripted lessons improve test scores. The question is what kind of teaching profession we are creating.

Are we developing educators who know how to think, adapt, connect, and teach—or are we creating employees who have simply learned how to follow a script?

And perhaps the most important question for school leaders is this:

If we want teachers to trust us enough to lead them, shouldn’t we trust them enough to teach?

Read more

This is day six of professional development, and I am currently sitting in an ACT training that is almost as exciting as watching paint dry in slow motion. I wrote about professional development earlier this week, and apparently, the universe decided I needed additional material. I had hoped that my previous post would simply be a moment of reflection—a brief commentary on the disconnect between what teachers are expected to do and what we are often forced to endure during professional development.

Unfortunately, it was not just a moment.

It was a warning.

Several days later, I am still sitting in sessions that reinforce the very concerns I raised earlier this week. The location may have changed. The presenter may have changed. The PowerPoint template may have changed. The problem, however, remains painfully consistent.

I would rather use my stiletto fingernails to peel wallpaper from an entire abandoned mansion than continue pretending that this is an effective learning experience.

And before anyone misinterprets my frustration, let me be clear: I do not object to learning. I have dedicated my entire professional life to education. I believe in professional growth. I believe teachers should continue studying instructional practices, analyzing data, refining strategies, and expanding their understanding of the students they serve. I am not resistant to new information, accountability, or improvement.

The problem is not that I do not want to learn.

The problem is that I am not being engaged as a learner.

The information may be useful. The content may be relevant. The facilitator may be knowledgeable. None of that automatically makes the presentation effective. Valuable information delivered poorly is still poor professional development.

Teachers Are Expected to Perform Instructional Miracles

Teachers are expected to engage every student who enters their classrooms.

We are told to differentiate instruction because learners have different readiness levels, interests, needs, experiences, and learning preferences. We are expected to use transitions that minimize downtime, establish learning targets, activate prior knowledge, incorporate movement, ask higher-order questions, monitor understanding, provide feedback, use technology appropriately, and adjust instruction when students appear confused or disengaged.

We are expected to recognize when our students are mentally checking out.

We are expected to change our approach when the lesson is not working.

We are expected to build relationships, create psychologically safe environments, use respectful language, and ensure that students feel valued rather than belittled. If students are disengaged, teachers are rarely allowed to say, “Well, I presented the information, so my job is complete.”

Instead, we are asked what we could have done differently.

Did we make the content relevant? Did we vary our instructional strategies? Did we provide opportunities for collaboration? Did we check for understanding? Did we allow students to process and apply the information? Did we communicate in a way that respected their experiences and abilities?

Those are fair questions.

My question is why those same questions are not consistently asked of the people responsible for teaching teachers.

Why Is Adult Learning Treated Like an Afterthought?

Teachers are adult learners, but sometimes professional development treats us like a captive audience that should be grateful someone remembered to print the handouts.

Many educators enter professional-development sessions with years—sometimes decades—of classroom experience. They hold advanced degrees, certifications, specialized training, and practical knowledge developed through daily work with students. Yet some presenters speak to teachers as though we have never seen a lesson plan, reviewed student data, administered an assessment, or heard the term “learning objective.”

There is a difference between explaining a concept and talking down to people.

There is also a difference between establishing expertise and performing superiority.

Throughout this week, the tone of several sessions has felt unnecessarily condescending. Teachers have been spoken to rather than engaged with. Questions have sometimes been treated as interruptions instead of opportunities for clarification. Existing knowledge has been ignored rather than activated. Professional expertise has been minimized instead of respected.

The result is not merely boredom. It is disengagement rooted in disrespect.

Adults need to understand why information matters, how it applies to their work, and what they can do with it. They need opportunities to connect new learning to prior experience. They benefit from discussion, choice, application, reflection, and problem-solving. Teachers know this because we are expected to provide those same opportunities for students every day.

So why are we still sitting through hours of slides being read aloud?

Why are we still attending sessions in which the primary instructional strategy is “sit down, be quiet, and listen”?

Why are presenters allowed to criticize teachers for failing to engage students while using methods that would earn a teacher an unsatisfactory observation?

Why Aren’t Presenters Vetted?

School districts spend considerable time evaluating teachers. Administrators conduct formal observations, informal walkthroughs, lesson-plan reviews, data meetings, coaching cycles, and performance evaluations. Teachers are expected to demonstrate content knowledge, instructional skill, professionalism, classroom management, and responsiveness to student needs.

What is the equivalent process for professional-development presenters?

Are they evaluated on their ability to facilitate adult learning, or are they selected solely because they know the content? Are their previous sessions reviewed? Are teachers asked whether the training was useful, respectful, engaging, and applicable? Are those evaluations used when deciding whether the presenter should return?

Being knowledgeable does not automatically make someone an effective presenter.

Having a title does not automatically make someone a skilled facilitator.

Working for a respected organization does not guarantee that a person knows how to engage a room full of educators.

Presenters should be expected to demonstrate clear objectives, relevant content, varied delivery methods, practical application, respectful communication, and responsiveness to the audience. They should understand the population of teachers they are training and, whenever possible, the students those teachers serve.

Professional development should not be assigned based only on availability, organizational affiliation, or who can deliver the same prepackaged presentation to every school in the district.

Presenters should be vetted because teachers’ time matters.

Engagement Is Not Entertainment

Whenever teachers criticize professional development, someone inevitably responds that every session cannot be entertaining.

That is true.

Professional development does not have to resemble a comedy show, game night, or motivational concert. Engagement is not the same as entertainment. Teachers do not need prizes, coordinated chants, or forced icebreakers every fifteen minutes.

We need meaningful participation.

We need clear connections between the content and our work. We need opportunities to analyze real scenarios, practice strategies, ask questions, collaborate with colleagues, examine student work, and leave with something we can use. We need facilitators who recognize when the room is lost and possess enough instructional flexibility to adjust.

Most importantly, we need to be treated as professionals.

A presenter can be serious and still engaging. A session can be content-heavy and still interactive. Complex information can be delivered without condescension. High expectations and professional respect can coexist.

Teachers understand that engagement requires intentional planning. Presenters should understand it too.

Hold Professional Development to the Same Standard

If teachers are expected to differentiate, professional development should acknowledge differences in teacher experience, subject area, grade level, and professional need.

If teachers are expected to use data, professional-development planners should use teacher feedback to improve future sessions.

If teachers are expected to establish relevance, presenters should clearly explain how the training connects to classroom practice and student outcomes.

If teachers are expected to check for understanding, presenters should do more than ask, “Does everybody understand?” while continuing to the next slide before anyone can respond.

If teachers are expected to build relationships and maintain respectful learning environments, facilitators should not use a dismissive or condescending tone.

If teachers are expected to reflect on unsuccessful lessons, presenters should be expected to reflect when an entire room of educators appears mentally absent.

The standard should not disappear simply because the learners are adults.

Teachers Should Help Lead the Learning

Schools and districts are filled with instructional experts. Teachers are already developing effective strategies, analyzing student needs, leading departments, mentoring colleagues, piloting programs, and producing results. Yet schools frequently overlook their own talent and bring in outside presenters who may have limited understanding of the local context.

External expertise can be valuable, but it should not automatically be valued above internal expertise.

Imagine professional development designed with teachers rather than merely delivered to them. Imagine experienced educators facilitating sessions connected to actual classroom challenges. Imagine departments selecting learning pathways based on their needs. Imagine teachers observing one another, sharing practices, analyzing evidence, and participating in ongoing coaching instead of isolated one-day presentations.

Professional development could strengthen teacher efficacy, culture, collaboration, and morale if educators were treated as contributors rather than passive recipients.

Teachers are more likely to invest in professional learning when they can see its relevance, respect the facilitator, contribute their expertise, and apply the information directly to their work.

That should not be a revolutionary concept.

And Yet, Here I Am Again

I wrote about this earlier in the week because I was frustrated by the hypocrisy of asking teachers to provide personalized, engaging instruction while delivering one-size-fits-all professional development.

I am writing about it again because nothing has changed.

Day six has not provided a counterargument. It has provided additional evidence.

The irony of sitting through an unengaging training about improving student performance is difficult to ignore. We are discussing how to prepare students for a demanding assessment while experiencing instruction that disregards many of the principles we are expected to use.

Again, the issue is not whether the content has value.

The issue is whether the delivery honors the content, the audience, and the time being invested.

Professional development should not leave teachers feeling smaller, dismissed, or intellectually underestimated. It should challenge us without belittling us. It should provide meaningful learning without assuming we know nothing. It should model the instructional quality that schools demand from teachers.

A Reflection for School Leaders

Before scheduling the next professional-development session, school and district leaders should ask several questions.

Would this presentation meet the instructional expectations we establish for teachers? Does the facilitator understand adult learning? Is the content relevant to the educators in the room? Will teachers have opportunities to engage, apply, question, and reflect? Has the presenter demonstrated respect for teacher expertise? How will feedback be collected, and will that feedback influence future decisions?

Most importantly, would you willingly sit through this session yourself?

If the honest answer is no, do not require teachers to do it.

The Call to Action

Teachers should not be expected to accept ineffective professional development simply because attendance is mandatory. Our time is too valuable, our work is too important, and the needs of our students are too significant.

Vet presenters. Establish standards. Review teacher feedback. Differentiate professional learning. Use the experts already working within schools. Require facilitators to model the engagement, respect, clarity, and responsiveness expected in classrooms.

Stop confusing compliance with learning.

A room full of quiet teachers does not necessarily indicate engagement. Sometimes it simply means we understand the consequences of saying aloud what everyone is already thinking.

And what many of us are thinking—on day six—is that teachers deserve better.

Reflection: When was the last time a professional-development session genuinely changed your practice, and what made that experience different?

For many teachers, school has already started. For others, the new year has begun with several days of professional development.

Yay.

Please understand that the enthusiasm is entirely sarcastic.

If you are reading this during a professional development session, you may be sitting in a freezing auditorium entirely too early in the morning, clutching an energy drink or a cup of coffee, while listening to a presenter explain how to engage students. Meanwhile, the presentation consists of 97 text-heavy slides being read aloud word for word.

Perhaps the presenter has not taught in a classroom in years. Maybe the presenter has limited classroom experience, no experience teaching your subject or grade level, or little familiarity with the population of students you serve. Yet, somehow, the expectation is that you will take these generalized strategies back to your classroom and immediately transform student achievement.

No pressure.

Teachers are continuously encouraged to differentiate instruction. We are told to consider students’ readiness levels, backgrounds, learning preferences, interests, strengths, challenges, and individual needs. We are expected to modify content, processes, assessments, and learning environments so that every student has a meaningful opportunity to succeed.

Yet professional development for teachers is frequently designed using the exact opposite approach.

Everyone attends the same session.

Everyone receives the same information.

Everyone completes the same activity.

Everyone is expected to need the same support.

Why?

Why Is Professional Development Still One-Size-Fits-All?

One-size-fits-all professional development is often easier to organize. It allows schools and districts to train large groups of employees at one time, document attendance, satisfy compliance requirements, and communicate a consistent message. From an administrative perspective, it may appear efficient.

However, efficiency and effectiveness are not the same thing.

A school may successfully place 100 educators in a room, present information for three hours, collect signatures, and declare the training complete. That does not mean meaningful professional learning occurred.

Traditional professional development is often selected from the top down. A district identifies an initiative, purchases a program, hires an outside consultant, and schedules a training. By the time the information reaches classroom teachers, the session may have little connection to their immediate needs.

A veteran science teacher, a first-year English teacher, a special education teacher, an instructional assistant, and an elementary interventionist may all be placed in the same session and expected to leave with equally useful information.

That is not differentiation. That is distribution.

The information was distributed, but whether it was useful, relevant, or applicable becomes the teacher’s problem.

Schools may also rely heavily on outside presenters because external expertise is often viewed as more credible than the knowledge already present within the building. There is an unfortunate assumption that someone must come from another district, another state, a consulting company, or a university to have something valuable to offer.

Meanwhile, the teacher down the hall may be achieving exceptional student growth, implementing effective classroom-management systems, developing strong family partnerships, integrating technology creatively, or reaching students whom others have struggled to engage.

We frequently search outside the school for answers that may already exist inside it.

What If Teachers Facilitated Professional Development?

What would happen if schools identified the experts already working within their buildings and gave them meaningful opportunities to lead?

Teacher-led professional development could include workshops, demonstration lessons, peer observations, instructional rounds, collaborative planning sessions, strategy exchanges, mentoring programs, content-specific sessions, and problem-solving groups.

A teacher with strong classroom-management practices could facilitate a session on establishing routines and responding to challenging behavior. A special education teacher could lead training on accommodations, modifications, and inclusive instructional practices. A teacher who has demonstrated success with multilingual learners could share strategies that have worked with the school’s actual student population.

A technology-savvy teacher could provide hands-on support with digital tools. A teacher with strong assessment data could explain how they monitor learning and adjust instruction. A veteran educator could support new teachers with practical guidance that extends beyond what appears in a handbook.

These sessions would not be based on hypothetical classrooms. They would be grounded in the hallways, schedules, students, expectations, and resources teachers encounter every day.

That context matters.

Teacher-Led Learning Builds Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy is a teacher’s belief in their ability to positively influence student learning. When teachers feel competent, supported, and equipped to respond to challenges, they are more likely to approach their work with confidence and persistence.

Relevant professional development strengthens that belief.

Teachers are more likely to apply a strategy when they can see that it has worked with students similar to their own. Learning from a colleague makes implementation feel practical rather than theoretical. Teachers can ask specific questions, examine real examples, discuss possible obstacles, and receive continued support after the session ends.

The facilitator is not disappearing at the end of the presentation and catching a flight home. That person may be teaching across the hall.

Teacher-led professional development also affirms the expertise of the presenter. Being selected to lead tells teachers that their knowledge matters. It communicates that they are not simply employees expected to carry out decisions but professionals capable of shaping instructional practices.

That recognition can create new leadership pathways for educators who want to grow without immediately leaving the classroom.

Too often, the only way for teachers to receive greater recognition, influence, or compensation is to move into administration. Schools should create leadership opportunities that allow exceptional teachers to remain connected to students while contributing to the development of their colleagues.

Teacher Leadership Can Improve School Culture

School culture is shaped by what an organization consistently values, recognizes, and rewards.

When schools elevate teacher expertise, collaboration becomes more than a slogan. Teachers begin to see one another as resources instead of isolated individuals responsible for solving every problem alone.

A teacher-led model encourages educators to ask:

“What is working in your classroom?”

“Can I observe how you teach that concept?”

“Would you share your strategy with our department?”

“How can we adapt that approach for our students?”

Those questions create a culture of shared learning.

They also reduce the artificial divide that sometimes exists between leadership and classroom instruction. Administrators do not have to be the only individuals responsible for providing answers. Instead, their role can include identifying strengths, creating opportunities, removing barriers, and supporting teachers as instructional leaders.

This type of culture recognizes that expertise can exist at every level of the organization.

The first-year teacher may have exceptional technology skills. The veteran teacher may understand the community in ways no outside consultant could. The interventionist may recognize learning gaps before anyone else. The instructional assistant may notice student behaviors and needs that are overlooked during formal planning meetings.

A strong school culture does not merely allow these voices into the conversation. It intentionally seeks them out.

It Can Also Improve Teacher Morale

Teacher morale is not improved by doughnuts in the lounge, motivational slogans, jeans passes, or being told to practice self-care while receiving additional responsibilities.

Those gestures may be appreciated, but genuine morale is connected to professional respect, manageable expectations, meaningful support, autonomy, recognition, and trust.

Teachers want to know that their time matters.

They want professional learning that helps them solve real problems. They want opportunities to contribute. They want their experiences to be respected. They want administrators to recognize that classroom teachers possess valuable knowledge—not merely opinions to be heard before the original plan proceeds unchanged.

Teacher-led professional development sends a powerful message:

We see your expertise.

We trust your leadership.

We believe your colleagues can learn from you.

Your work is worth sharing.

That kind of recognition can restore a sense of professional pride, particularly in environments where teachers feel overlooked, micromanaged, or disconnected from decision-making.

It can also make professional development feel less like something being done to teachers and more like something being built with them.

Additional Benefits Schools Should Consider

Teacher-led professional development can provide several practical benefits.

First, it increases relevance. Sessions can be directly aligned with school data, student needs, curriculum expectations, and current instructional challenges.

Second, it encourages immediate application. Teachers can leave with strategies, templates, examples, and resources that fit their daily work.

Third, it provides ongoing support. Participants can follow up with the teacher leader, observe the strategy in action, or revisit the topic during collaborative planning.

Fourth, it develops internal capacity. Instead of relying exclusively on outside consultants, schools cultivate their own network of instructional experts.

Fifth, it can be more cost-effective. Schools may reduce consulting expenses while using available funds to compensate teacher facilitators, provide resources, or support classroom implementation.

Most importantly, teacher-led professional development can become sustainable. The goal should not be to experience one inspiring presentation and then return to business as usual. The goal should be to build systems in which professional learning continues throughout the year.

Teacher-Led Does Not Mean Teacher-Exploited

There is an important distinction that schools must recognize.

Teacher-led professional development should not become another unpaid responsibility added to an already overwhelming workload.

Teachers who prepare and facilitate professional learning should receive adequate planning time, resources, support, recognition, and compensation. They should not be asked on Friday afternoon to prepare a two-hour presentation for Monday morning because someone suddenly remembered there was an opening in the agenda.

If schools truly value teacher expertise, that value must be reflected in how teacher leaders are treated.

Participation should also be intentional. Not every effective classroom teacher wants to become a presenter, and excellent teaching does not automatically translate into effective adult facilitation. Teacher leaders may need coaching on presentation design, adult learning, feedback, and group facilitation.

A successful model requires planning. It should not rely on repeatedly calling upon the same dependable teachers while others remain disengaged.

Schools should develop a diverse group of teacher leaders across grade levels, departments, years of experience, specialties, and backgrounds. Expertise should be identified through classroom observations, student outcomes, colleague recommendations, demonstrated practices, and teachers’ willingness to share.

A Moment of Reflection

Before scheduling the next mandatory professional development session, school leaders should pause and ask:

• What problem are we actually trying to solve?

• Have we asked teachers what support they need?

• Does someone within our school already possess expertise in this area?

• Will this session respect differences in teachers’ experience, content areas, and professional needs?

• Will teachers leave with something they can use?

• How will we support implementation after the training?

• Are we building professional capacity, or are we simply filling time on the calendar?

Teachers should also reflect on their own expertise.

What do you do well?

What have you learned through experience that could help another educator?

What strategy, resource, system, or lesson could you share?

There is expertise in every school building. The challenge is whether leaders are willing to recognize it, develop it, and trust it.

A Call to Action

Schools should begin treating professional development the same way teachers are expected to treat classroom instruction: with purpose, differentiation, engagement, relevance, and respect for the learner.

Ask teachers what they need.

Identify the experts within the school.

Offer teachers choices.

Create content-specific and experience-specific learning opportunities.

Provide time for collaboration, practice, reflection, and follow-up.

Compensate teachers who design and facilitate professional learning.

Most importantly, stop assuming that the most valuable voice in the room must belong to the person who traveled the farthest to get there.

Sometimes the expert is already in the building.

She may be sitting in the back of the professional development session, answering emails, adjusting tomorrow’s lesson plans, and quietly wondering why no one ever asked her what she knows.

It is time to ask.

Some spent the summer enjoying much-needed time with their families. Some traveled, rested, read books that had nothing to do with curriculum, and tried to remember who they were outside the classroom. Others attended professional development sessions, revised lesson plans, studied new standards, completed certification requirements, and prepared themselves to meet another group of students.

And sadly, some teachers spent their summer turning part-time jobs into full-time jobs just to make ends meet.

Let that sit with you.

The people we trust to educate children, identify learning disabilities, manage classrooms, communicate with families, protect students, analyze data, respond to emergencies, implement changing policies, and prepare the next generation for adulthood are sometimes delivering food, working retail, tutoring at night, or taking seasonal jobs because their professional salaries are insufficient.

Federal data from the 2020–21 school year showed that 16.6% of full-time public school teachers who remained in the profession held jobs outside their school systems during the school year. Those teachers earned an average of approximately $6,200 from that additional employment.

That is not evidence of teachers lacking commitment.

It is evidence of a compensation system lacking respect.

The Numbers Tell the Truth

The national average public school teacher salary reached approximately $74,495 during the 2024–25 school year. However, averages can hide the realities of teachers living and working in lower-paying states. During that same year, the average salary was approximately $54,975 in Mississippi, $56,663 in Florida, and $56,785 in Louisiana.

In Alabama, the average teacher salary was approximately $62,985, while the average starting salary was $47,955.

Teachers are not simply comparing their salaries to teachers in neighboring districts. They are comparing their earnings to those of other professionals with similar levels of education and experience.

That comparison is troubling.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, public school teachers earned approximately 73 cents for every dollar earned by comparable college-educated professionals in 2024. The teacher wage penalty reached a record 26.9%, up from only 6.1% in 1996. Even when benefits were included, teachers still experienced a total compensation gap of 17.1%.

In Alabama, the teacher wage penalty was approximately 34.3%, one of the largest gaps in the country.

We cannot continue calling teaching a profession while compensating teachers as though their education, expertise, and experience are optional.

Other Countries Have Made Different Choices

The United States does not have to imagine what it looks like to compensate teachers competitively. Other countries are already doing it.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that American teachers earn less than 60% of what similarly educated workers earn. That is the lowest relative teacher compensation among all OECD countries.

Read that again.

In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, teachers experience the largest salary disadvantage when compared with workers possessing similar educational qualifications.

Meanwhile, mid-career primary teachers in Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands earn more than $90,000 in internationally comparable purchasing-power-adjusted dollars. In Korea and Luxembourg, teachers with approximately 15 years of experience earn at least 25% more than similarly educated workers. Teachers at the top of the salary scale in those countries earn at least 60% more than comparable professionals.

In Portugal, the actual salaries of primary teachers are approximately 28% higher than those of other tertiary-educated workers.

These countries have not solved every educational problem. However, their compensation structures communicate something important: teaching is skilled professional work, experience has value, and remaining in the classroom should not require accepting a lifetime financial penalty.

America communicates something different.

We tell teachers their work is a calling and then use that calling to justify paying them less.

We praise their sacrifice instead of asking why sacrifice is required.

Teachers Are Educated Professionals—Until Decisions Are Made

Teachers are expected to behave as professionals, but they are not consistently treated as professionals.

They must earn degrees, obtain licenses, maintain certifications, complete continuing education, analyze assessment data, implement evidence-based practices, document interventions, communicate with multiple stakeholders, and remain accountable for student outcomes.

In 2020–21, approximately 62% of traditional public school teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree, including a master’s degree, education specialist credential, or doctorate.

Yet teachers are frequently handed scripted curricula without meaningful input. They are required to attend professional development that may not address their needs. Their planning periods are consumed by meetings, coverage assignments, paperwork, and responsibilities unrelated to instruction. Decisions affecting classrooms are too often made by people who have not taught recently—or who have never taught at all.

The consequences are visible when teachers leave.

Among former teachers who were working in other positions after leaving the classroom, 60% reported having greater autonomy or control over their work. Fifty-eight percent said their workload was more manageable, and the same percentage reported greater professional prestige outside teaching.

That finding should make every school leader, policymaker, and community member pause.

Teachers are not only leaving for more money. Some are leaving because they want to be trusted, respected, and treated like experts.

Advancement Should Not Require Leaving the Classroom

School administration is important, but it should not be the only meaningful path to professional advancement.

Some of our strongest teachers do not want to become principals. They want to remain close to students. They want to master their craft, mentor other educators, design curriculum, lead research, develop instructional programs, support new teachers, and influence policy without surrendering the classroom entirely.

Districts should create compensated career pathways such as:

• Master teacher and lead teacher positions

• Instructional research and curriculum fellowships

• Teacher mentorship roles with reduced teaching loads

• Content-area specialist positions

• Teacher-led professional development opportunities

• Hybrid teaching and district leadership assignments

• Performance bonuses tied to meaningful contributions—not simply test scores

• Paid opportunities to write curriculum, conduct research, and support school improvement

A teacher should not have to leave teaching to receive a substantial salary increase, professional authority, or recognition.

Pre-Service Must Be More Than Motivation

As school and district leaders plan pre-service activities, I hope the agenda includes more than motivational speakers, matching shirts, icebreakers, new initiatives, and reminders about test scores.

Teachers do not need another person telling them to “remember their why” while ignoring the conditions that make the work unnecessarily difficult.

They already know their why.

The question is whether school systems know their responsibility.

Before asking teachers to give more, leaders should be asking:

What are we doing to advocate for competitive salaries?

What opportunities have we created for teachers to advance without becoming administrators?

How are we protecting teachers’ planning time?

How are we including teachers in decisions that affect their classrooms?

How are we recognizing excellence throughout the year—not just during Teacher Appreciation Week?

How are we rewarding the educators who mentor colleagues, sponsor organizations, tutor students, write grants, lead committees, attend games, communicate with families, and quietly keep schools functioning?

Celebration without compensation is ceremony.

Appreciation without advocacy is performance.

Put Respect in the Budget

Every profession begins in a classroom.

Before there is a doctor, lawyer, engineer, entrepreneur, scientist, principal, superintendent, elected official, or corporate executive, there is a teacher helping that person read, reason, calculate, communicate, question, create, and believe.

Yet when budgets are written, teacher salaries are too often treated as an expense to contain rather than an investment to protect.

Teachers should not have to depend on a spouse’s income to remain in the profession. They should not have to tutor every evening, work every weekend, or spend their summers employed elsewhere just to maintain a reasonable standard of living. They should not have to choose between serving children and achieving financial security.

This new school year, do not simply welcome teachers back.

Advocate for them.

Pay them competitively. Create professional pathways for them. Trust their expertise. Protect their time. Recognize their contributions. Build school cultures where teachers are celebrated publicly, supported privately, and compensated appropriately.

Because praise does not pay a mortgage.

A jeans day is not a retention strategy.

A catered lunch is not professional respect.

And gratitude, no matter how beautifully expressed, will never be a substitute for fair compensation.

Teachers have carried the future of this country for generations.

It is time their salaries reflected the weight of what they carry.

Read more

But for Black and brown children in public education, the question is not whether America can put on a good celebration. The question is whether America can produce a just outcome.

Because patriotism is not proven by how loudly we sing the anthem. Patriotism is proven by how honestly we educate every child standing beneath that flag.

Frederick Douglass forced America to wrestle with this contradiction in his 1852 speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” His question was not simply about a holiday. It was about hypocrisy. It was about the painful distance between America’s words and America’s work. Douglass challenged a nation that celebrated liberty while millions remained enslaved, asking the country to confront the gap between its founding ideals and its lived reality.

That same question echoes in public education today.

What is freedom to a child who is enrolled in school but denied equal access to strong teachers, advanced courses, science labs, literacy support, safety, dignity, and opportunity? What does independence mean to a student who walks across a graduation stage but still struggles to read complex text, write a clear argument, calculate with confidence, or compete for the future America promised them?

We love to say education is the great equalizer, but too often, public education has become the great revealer. It reveals who gets protected and who gets policed. It reveals who gets enrichment and who gets remediation. It reveals who gets AP courses and who gets worksheets. It reveals who gets the benefit of the doubt and who gets written up before anyone asks what happened.

This is not new.

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separating children in public schools by race was unconstitutional and signaled the end of legally sanctioned segregation in American schools. But we must be honest: ending legal segregation did not end educational separation.

Today, children are not always separated by signs over school doors. They are separated by ZIP code, school funding, teacher quality, course access, discipline practices, school climate, and adult expectations. Some children inherit opportunity. Others have to audition for it.

Think about the Little Rock Nine. In 1957, nine Black teenagers attempted to attend Little Rock Central High School after the Brown decision. They did not ask for luxury. They asked for access. The National Park Service describes Little Rock Central High School as a national test of whether the United States would enforce African American civil rights after Brown. Those students had to carry the weight of a nation’s resistance on their backs just to walk into a school building and learn.

Think about Ruby Bridges. In 1960, she was six years old when she entered William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans escorted by U.S. Marshals because of threats and protests against school desegregation. A baby had to be protected by federal officers just to receive an education. That image should still disturb us. It should disturb us because public education should never require Black and brown children to be brave before they are allowed to be brilliant.

And because I am from Mississippi, I cannot ignore the Freedom Schools. In 1964, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee created Freedom School curriculum rooted in the lives of young Black Mississippians. It was designed to help students examine their personal experiences with racial discrimination and understand the broader context of Mississippi’s society. That is a lesson public education still needs today: children do not learn well when schools ignore who they are, what they carry, and what they are being asked to overcome.

Now bring that history into today’s classrooms.

A Black boy is labeled defiant when he asks questions.

A brown child who is still learning English is treated as if language difference means intellectual deficiency.

A student with brilliance in science never takes physics because the course is not offered.

A child who could thrive in advanced mathematics is never recommended because no one saw them as “that type of student.”

A teenager is celebrated for graduating, but nobody wants to talk about whether the diploma represents readiness.

That is not freedom. That is managed survival.

The data confirms what many educators, parents, and students already know. In 2024, national reading scores were down in both fourth and eighth grade, and 33% of eighth graders were below NAEP Basic in reading. In eighth-grade mathematics, the 2024 national average score was not significantly different from 2022, but it remained 8 points lower than in 2019. We can debate reasons all day, but we cannot debate the reality: too many children are leaving classrooms without the academic foundation they need.

Opportunity gaps show up before students ever take the test. The U.S. Department of Education’s 2021–22 Civil Rights Data Collection reported on students’ access to educational opportunities, including mathematics, science, computer science, teachers, school staff, and school climate factors. These are not small details. These are the building blocks of access.

So when people ask why there are not more Black and brown students in STEM, leadership, medicine, engineering, technology, research, and high-wage careers, we need to stop acting confused. The pipeline does not begin in college. It begins in elementary and secondary schools where access is either opened early or quietly denied.

Discipline tells another part of the story. The Civil Rights Data Collection has tracked data on students’ equal access to educational opportunities for more than five decades, including school climate and discipline. And what many Black and brown families know from lived experience is this: some children are corrected, while others are criminalized. Some children are redirected, while others are removed. Some children are given grace, while others are given records.

So yes, let the fireworks light up the sky. Let the bands play. Let the flags wave. Let families gather and celebrate the beauty of freedom.

But when the smoke clears, we still have work to do.

We cannot keep celebrating freedom in July while accepting inequity in August. We cannot salute the flag and ignore the child sitting in a classroom with no certified teacher, no counselor, no science equipment, no advanced courses, and no one willing to fight for their future.

Real patriotism requires performance.

Not performative patriotism. Not symbolic patriotism. Not the kind of patriotism that shows up for pictures, speeches, and holidays, but disappears when budgets are approved, schedules are built, teachers are assigned, and children are sorted into opportunity or neglect.

I am talking about measurable, visible, accountable performance.

How many Black and brown students are reading on grade level?

How many are placed in gifted programs?

How many have access to Algebra I before high school?

How many are enrolled in AP, dual enrollment, computer science, chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics?

How many are being suspended instead of supported?

How many graduate with a diploma that actually represents readiness?

How many students are sitting in classrooms where adults have already decided what they cannot become?

America does not need more symbolic love for children. It needs structural love.

Love that shows up in budgets.

Love that shows up in staffing.

Love that shows up in school board decisions.

Love that shows up in master schedules.

Love that shows up when a teacher refuses to lower expectations and a principal refuses to hide behind excuses.

Love that shows up when parents, churches, community leaders, universities, and businesses stop treating public education like somebody else’s problem.

The Fourth of July should make us celebrate freedom, but it should also make us audit freedom. Because if freedom means anything, it must mean that Black and brown children are not merely allowed to sit in classrooms. They must be taught well, protected fully, challenged academically, affirmed culturally, and prepared honestly.

The flag waves over every school. The real question is whether every child under that flag is being given a fair chance to rise.

So as we celebrate this Fourth of July, let us do more than post flags, attend cookouts, and admire fireworks. Let us ask harder questions. Let us attend school board meetings. Let us examine school data. Let us challenge unequal access to advanced courses, quality science instruction, certified teachers, counselors, safe learning environments, and meaningful college and career pathways.

Let us hold leaders accountable when Black and brown children are over-disciplined, underrepresented, underestimated, and underprepared.

Parents, ask what opportunities your child has access to and what doors may be quietly closed.

Educators, refuse to confuse compliance with learning or poverty with inability.

Community leaders, stop waiting until children fail before you decide to invest in them.

Churches, civic groups, businesses, and universities must become active partners in tutoring, mentoring, advocacy, enrichment, exposure, and accountability.

Freedom is not just something we celebrate. Freedom is something we build, protect, fund, teach, and demand.

This year, when the fireworks fade and the flags come down, let the real work begin.

Because Black and brown children do not need symbolic patriotism. They need courageous adults who are willing to fight for their literacy, their brilliance, their safety, their science labs, their advanced courses, their dignity, and their future.

If America is going to keep calling itself the land of opportunity, then opportunity must stop skipping over the very children who have been waiting the longest to receive it.

But here is the part we need to say out loud: science is being slighted.

Not because teachers do not care. Not because students are not curious. Not because Mississippi children lack brilliance. Science is being slighted because our systems have taught schools to chase what gets counted the loudest. When accountability pressure comes knocking, English Language Arts and math usually get the front seat, the window seat, and the extra leg room. Science is often left in the back, squeezed between “if we have time” and “after testing season.”

And that is a problem.

According to the Mississippi Department of Education’s updated accountability documents, elementary and middle schools are scored on multiple reading and math indicators, including proficiency, growth for all students, and growth for the lowest-performing 25% of students. Science appears as a proficiency indicator, but it does not receive the same growth emphasis as reading and math. At the high school level, the model includes reading, math, science, English Learner progress, graduation, and readiness indicators, but science still occupies a much smaller portion of the total accountability picture than reading, math, graduation, and readiness measures (MDE, 2025–2026).

Let me translate that in regular people language: science counts, but it does not count enough to protect instructional time when schools feel pressure.

That is how we end up with students who can identify the main idea in a science passage but have never designed an investigation. They can underline evidence in a paragraph but struggle to collect evidence in a lab. They can calculate from a formula but do not understand what the formula means in the real world. We are raising students to perform school, not always to understand the world.

And baby, the world is scientific whether we teach it well or not.

The weather is science. Medicine is science. Agriculture is science. Advanced manufacturing is science. Environmental safety is science. Engineering, aviation, robotics, energy, health care, forensics, computer systems, and water quality are all tied to science. Even the phone in a child’s hand is a science lesson begging to be unpacked.

Meanwhile, the job market is not waiting for Mississippi to decide whether science deserves more time. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects STEM occupations to grow faster than non-STEM occupations from 2024 to 2034, with STEM jobs also reporting much higher median wages than non-STEM jobs (BLS, 2025). That does not mean every child must become a scientist, engineer, nurse, coder, or lab technician. But it does mean every child deserves access to the kind of instruction that makes those futures possible.

A curriculum without quality science teaching creates deficiencies that do not always show up immediately on a report card. They show up later when students avoid advanced coursework because they “are not science people.” They show up when young adults enter health-care training programs without strong anatomy, biology, or chemistry foundations. They show up when students struggle with data, graphs, claims, evidence, measurement, lab safety, technical reading, and problem solving. They show up when rural students, Black students, low-income students, and first-generation college students are introduced to STEM careers too late to build confidence and preparation.

And let’s stop pretending exposure is the same as instruction.

A worksheet about the water cycle is not the same as investigating condensation. Reading about force and motion is not the same as testing how mass, friction, and acceleration interact. Watching a video about cells is not the same as using a microscope, building models, asking questions, and defending conclusions. Science must be touched, questioned, tested, observed, argued, revised, and connected to life.

Quality science instruction teaches students how to think. It teaches them how to ask better questions, analyze data, challenge assumptions, make evidence-based claims, and communicate findings. The National Academies have emphasized that high-quality science education gives students opportunities to investigate, analyze data, draw conclusions, and communicate results—skills that matter in the workforce and in civic life (National Academies, 2021). That is not extra. That is foundational.

Science also strengthens reading and math. A child who reads about ecosystems with background knowledge reads better. A child who measures, graphs, estimates, and analyzes data in science sees math as useful instead of random. A child who writes a claim-evidence-reasoning response in science is practicing academic writing. Science is not competing with ELA and math. Science is one of the best places to make ELA and math come alive.

So why are we still treating it like something we squeeze in after the “real” subjects?

The updated accountability model tells part of the story. Schools respond to pressure. If the greatest pressure is attached to reading and math growth, then reading and math get protected. Science becomes vulnerable. It gets shortened, skipped, blended beyond recognition, or reduced to vocabulary packets. That may help a schedule look neat, but it does not help a child build scientific literacy.

We have to be honest enough to admit that some students are passing through school with science gaps wide enough to drive a school bus through. They may know test-taking strategies but not laboratory practices. They may know how to eliminate answer choices but not how to test a hypothesis. They may know science words but not science thinking.

That is not preparation. That is academic cosmetics.

Parents and communities cannot wait quietly for the system to fix what the system has helped create. We must become louder, more informed, and more intentional. At the next school board meeting, parents should ask: How many minutes of science instruction are students receiving each week? How often are students participating in hands-on investigations? Does every school have updated science materials, lab supplies, and safe equipment? Are elementary teachers receiving support to teach science well, or are they being told to “fit it in”? Are middle and high school students being exposed to STEM careers before course selections close doors?

Communities can help supplement the deficiency, but let me be clear: supplementing does not mean excusing the school system from responsibility. It means refusing to let children suffer while adults debate priorities.

Churches can host STEM Saturdays. Libraries can create science kit checkouts. Retired nurses, engineers, farmers, electricians, pharmacists, mechanics, and lab technicians can visit classrooms and explain how science lives inside their work. Local colleges can partner with schools for lab days. Businesses can sponsor robotics clubs, science fairs, weather stations, school gardens, coding camps, or field experiences. Parents can turn kitchens into chemistry labs, backyards into ecosystems, and car rides into conversations about force, motion, weather, medicine, technology, and the environment.

No, every parent does not need to be a science expert. Curiosity is enough to start. Ask your child, “What did you observe?” “What evidence do you have?” “What do you think will happen next?” “How could we test that?” Those questions build scientific thinking. They also teach children that learning is not confined to a classroom or a test booklet.

But we need more than home experiments and good intentions. Mississippi needs a cultural shift around science education. We need to stop acting as if science is optional for some children and essential for others. We need to stop waiting until high school biology to discover that students have not had enough meaningful science experiences. We need to stop applauding accountability grades without asking what was sacrificed to earn them.

Because a school can look successful on paper and still send children into the future underprepared.

That is the hard truth.

If Mississippi wants students to compete for secure, high-demand, well-paying careers, science cannot be treated like a decorative elective. If we want children to understand health, technology, agriculture, the environment, engineering, and innovation, science cannot be reduced to a passage in reading class. If we want students to become problem-solvers instead of just test-takers, science must be protected, funded, scheduled, taught, and celebrated.

Our children deserve more than reading about discovery. They deserve to experience it.

So here is the call to action: Parents, ask the science questions. Teachers, keep advocating for lab time, materials, and meaningful instruction. Principals, protect science in the master schedule. School boards, demand data on science access, not just science scores. Community leaders, stop waiting to be invited and start building partnerships that put real-world science in front of children.

And to every person who cares about the future of Mississippi: do not let science be slighted in silence.

Because when we shortchange science, we do not just weaken a subject.

We narrow a child’s future.

The image is unsettling because it is supposed to be. A Black boy stands surrounded by oversized pills, with medication covering his chest and capsules appearing to close in around him. His hands are raised, his face reflects fear, and his body seems trapped beneath the weight of decisions being made about him.

The image makes a bold statement about the overrepresentation of Black male students identified as having disabilities in American schools. It also captures something many educators, parents, and Black boys already know: too often, schools attempt to manage Black boys before making a genuine effort to understand them. We diagnose them, medicate them, monitor them, remove them, and police them. Then we wonder why they stop trusting us.

We Call It a Behavior Problem Before We Ask What Happened

A Black boy who struggles to sit still may quickly become “disruptive.” If he speaks passionately, he may be labeled “aggressive.” When he questions an adult, he may be called “defiant,” and when he withdraws, he may be described as “unmotivated.” If he becomes frustrated academically, adults may treat him as though he simply does not care.

The language used to describe a child influences how adults respond to that child. Once a Black boy has been labeled difficult, dangerous, disrespectful, or deficient, every future action may be interpreted through that lens. His movement becomes misbehavior, his confidence becomes arrogance, his frustration becomes insubordination, and his silence becomes guilt. Even ordinary childhood mistakes can become evidence that he is a problem.

Before deciding that a Black boy is the problem, schools must be willing to examine the environment surrounding him. Is he being taught in a way that allows him to engage? Does he have meaningful relationships with the adults in the building? Has anyone determined whether he is struggling academically, experiencing trauma, grieving, being bullied, feeling unsafe, or living with chronic stress? Most importantly, does he believe anyone at school genuinely likes him, respects him, and wants him to succeed?

We cannot continue responding only to the visible behavior while ignoring the invisible need. Behavior communicates something, and educators have a responsibility to determine what the child may not yet have the words or confidence to explain.

Medication Cannot Replace Support

Medication can be helpful and medically appropriate for some children. This is not an argument against families seeking professional treatment or following the guidance of qualified healthcare providers. The concern begins when medication is treated as the easiest answer to a complicated educational problem or when adults become more interested in making a child manageable than helping him become successful.

A pill cannot replace an engaging lesson, and a prescription cannot repair a damaged relationship between a student and his teacher. Medication cannot compensate for overcrowded classrooms, weak instructional practices, racial bias, untreated trauma, inconsistent discipline, or a school culture in which Black boys are constantly watched but rarely affirmed.

The goal should never be to make Black boys quieter, smaller, less curious, less energetic, or less visible. The goal should be to help them understand themselves, regulate their emotions, strengthen their skills, and reach their full potential. Support must come before control, intervention before exclusion, and understanding before judgment.

We Overpolice the Same Boys We Underserve

In too many schools, Black boys are treated as potential threats before they are treated as developing children. They experience frequent office referrals, suspensions, removals from class, security searches, public corrections, and heightened adult surveillance. Even when their behavior is similar to that of their peers, the response may be harsher because adults perceive their actions differently.

We cannot claim to care about the school-to-prison pipeline while continuing to create school environments that resemble its entrance. A child should not feel criminalized because he forgot an identification badge, wore a hood, spoke with frustration, or failed to comply immediately with an adult’s request. He should not be removed from instruction for every minor act of noncompliance, nor should school resource officers become the first response to behavior that educators and administrators are trained to address.

Police presence cannot substitute for strong relationships, counseling, conflict resolution, effective classroom management, and responsible administrative leadership. There is a difference between keeping schools safe and treating children as suspects. Black boys deserve safety too, including safety from adult bias, public humiliation, excessive punishment, and systems that repeatedly assume the worst about them.

Identification Should Open Doors, Not Create Another Cage

Special education services can provide essential support, accommodations, targeted instruction, and legal protections. The problem is not the existence of special education. The problem arises when Black boys are inaccurately identified, placed in restrictive settings without adequate justification, or given labels that follow them while receiving little of the support those labels are supposed to provide.

A disability identification should never become an educational ceiling. It should not lead to lowered expectations, watered-down instruction, constant isolation, or adults assuming a student is incapable of rigorous work. Identification should create access to appropriate resources, not become another reason to remove a child from opportunity.

Schools must also examine what happens before the referral. Was the student given high-quality instruction? Were evidence-based interventions implemented consistently and for an appropriate amount of time? Was progress monitored carefully? Were cultural differences mistaken for deficiencies? Were parents treated as knowledgeable partners, or were they contacted only after the school had already decided what was wrong?

Too often, the system asks what is wrong with the child before asking what is missing from the instruction. That question must change.

Black Boys Do Not Need to Be Fixed

Black boys need teachers who recognize their brilliance before focusing on their behavior. They need books and lessons that reflect their history, culture, communities, interests, and possibilities. They need access to counselors, mentors, advanced courses, gifted programs, extracurricular activities, leadership opportunities, and caring adults who expect excellence without demanding perfection.

They also need space to be joyful, curious, loud, creative, intelligent, emotional, uncertain, energetic, and young. Black boys should not have to surrender their personalities in exchange for adult approval. They should not have to become silent to be considered respectful or emotionless to be considered strong.

Most importantly, Black boys need to know that support is not something they must earn by becoming perfectly compliant. They deserve support because they are children, patience because they are developing, dignity even when they make mistakes, and consequences that teach rather than merely punish. They deserve schools that see more than a diagnosis, disciplinary record, test score, or office referral.

The Call to Action

It is time for every school district to examine its data, not simply to satisfy a compliance requirement, but to confront what the numbers reveal. School leaders should ask who is being referred to special education, suspended, searched, restrained, removed from class, or sent to alternative school. They must also examine who receives counseling before punishment, who is given another chance, who is believed, who is protected, who is identified as gifted, and who is seen only as difficult.

Teachers must examine their biases, while administrators must challenge inconsistent discipline and stop defending harmful patterns as tradition. School boards must demand transparent data, and counselors and psychologists must advocate for comprehensive, culturally responsive evaluations. Families must be treated as knowledgeable partners, and district leaders must invest in early intervention, mental health services, restorative practices, mentoring, academic support, and high-quality professional development.

Before the next Black boy is referred, removed, medicated, or punished, every adult involved should ask: Have we truly supported this child, or have we simply tried to make him easier for the system to manage?

Black boys do not need more adults standing over them. They need more adults standing with them, speaking for them when necessary, listening to them when they are ready, and creating schools where they are supported rather than controlled. That is where the work begins.

School board members should not be allowed to sit in board rooms making decisions about children, teachers, school calendars, discipline policies, budgets, staffing, testing, curriculum, and school climate while being completely disconnected from what actually happens inside a school building. It is not enough to attend a meeting once or twice a month, shake hands at graduation, show up for photo opportunities, and quote “what is best for children” when some of them have not spent a full school day in a classroom since they were students themselves.

At some point, we have to ask a serious question: How can you govern what you do not regularly experience?

I believe school board members should have a direct and current connection to school-aged children. That could be a child, grandchild, stepchild, niece, nephew, godchild, or another meaningful family or caregiving connection. This is not about saying people without children cannot care about education. Some of the strongest advocates for children have never birthed or raised a child of their own. This is about proximity. It is about having skin in the game beyond politics, popularity, and personal agendas.

When you have a child you love connected to the school system, the conversation changes. Bus routes are no longer just transportation logistics. Teacher shortages are no longer abstract staffing issues. School safety is no longer a talking point. Curriculum decisions are no longer just agenda items. Discipline policies are no longer theoretical. Suddenly, every decision has a face, a name, a backpack, a schedule, and a future attached to it.

That kind of proximity matters.

But let me take it a step further. School board members should also be required to attend regular school days, teacher professional development sessions, and substitute occasionally. Yes, I said substitute. Put on the badge, pick up the roster, read the lesson plan, manage the hallway transitions, monitor the cafeteria, redirect the student who has tested everybody’s patience before 9:15 a.m., and then come back and talk to me about what teachers “should just do.”

Because some of the loudest opinions about education come from people who have not had to keep twenty-five to thirty students engaged, safe, learning, and emotionally regulated while the copier is broken, the internet is buffering, three students need make-up work, one student is crying, another student is refusing to work, and somebody from the front office just called asking you to send attendance again.

Spend a day in the building and you will understand why teachers are tired.

Spend a day in professional development and you will understand why teachers are frustrated when training does not match the reality of their classrooms.

Spend a day substituting and you will understand why classroom management is not a cute bullet point on an evaluation form.

Spend a day watching a principal move from parent calls to discipline hearings to bus issues to staff shortages to safety concerns to instructional walkthroughs, and you will understand that school leadership is not for the faint of heart.

And then, after all of that, sit in the board meeting and make decisions.

Not from a place of assumption.

Not from a place of political loyalty.

Not from a place of “back when I was in school.”

But from a place of informed responsibility.

The problem is that too many school board members become permanent fixtures instead of effective public servants. They serve for years and years, sometimes decades, and the schools under their governance still struggle with the same issues: low student achievement, high teacher turnover, weak communication, poor facilities, inconsistent leadership, discipline concerns, and community mistrust.

At what point do we stop calling that experience and start calling it stagnation?

Longevity does not automatically equal effectiveness. A person can sit in a seat for twenty years and still not lead with vision. A person can know everybody in the community and still not know what teachers need. A person can attend every meeting and still fail to move the district forward. Sometimes the issue is not that people do not care. Sometimes the issue is that they have gotten too comfortable, too political, too disconnected, or too invested in holding the seat instead of doing the work.

That is why school board seats should come with term limits.

Public education cannot afford lifetime seat warmers. We need fresh eyes, informed leadership, community accountability, and board members who understand that governance is not about power. It is about service. It is about stewardship. It is about making decisions that shape the lives of children who do not get to vote on who controls their school experience.

We also need school boards that understand their role. Let me say that again for the people in the back of the board room: school boards have a role. The superintendent has a role. Those roles are connected, but they are not the same.

Too many school boards operate at the whim of the superintendent instead of serving as a thoughtful, informed, independent governing body. Every recommendation gets rubber-stamped. Every explanation is accepted without deeper questioning. Every concern from teachers, parents, or community members is quietly redirected, dismissed, or buried under procedural language. The board nods, votes, adjourns, and then everybody acts surprised when the same problems keep showing up year after year.

That is not governance. That is compliance dressed up in Robert’s Rules of Order.

A strong superintendent matters. Let’s be clear. Districts need capable, visionary, student-centered superintendents who can lead complex systems. But school boards were not elected to be a fan club, a protection committee, or a ceremonial stamp pad. They were elected to provide oversight, ask hard questions, review data, challenge weak plans, listen to the community, and make sure the district is moving in the right direction.

When a board is afraid to question the superintendent, the community loses.

When a board accepts every report without digging beneath the surface, teachers lose.

When a board values loyalty over accountability, students lose.

When a board becomes more committed to protecting the image of the district than addressing the reality inside the schools, everybody loses.

A superintendent should not run a district without accountability, and a school board should not hide behind the superintendent when decisions fall apart. The board cannot claim authority when things look good and then claim ignorance when things go wrong. If you approve the budget, support the policy, renew the contract, ignore the concerns, and vote yes without meaningful discussion, then you own part of the outcome.

That is what leadership means.

And let’s be honest: some school boards are ineffective because the community has normalized low expectations. People complain in private but remain silent in public. Parents whisper at ball games. Teachers vent in group chats. Community members shake their heads at test scores, discipline problems, and leadership decisions, but when election season comes, the same people keep getting returned to the same seats with the same results.

We cannot keep recycling ineffective leadership and then act shocked when nothing changes.

If we want better schools, we have to demand better governance.

That means school board members should be visible beyond board meetings. They should know what arrival and dismissal look like. They should know which schools have working bathrooms, safe playgrounds, updated textbooks, functioning technology, and enough adults in the building. They should understand the difference between a policy that sounds good on paper and a policy that collapses in practice. They should listen to teachers without becoming defensive. They should talk to students without using them as props. They should engage parents without only showing up when cameras are present.

Most importantly, they should be learners.

A school board member who is unwilling to learn should not be making decisions about learning institutions.

Attend professional development. Sit with teachers and hear what they are being asked to implement. Learn about literacy instruction, special education, school safety, chronic absenteeism, student mental health, teacher retention, curriculum alignment, and accountability. Learn how policies impact classrooms. Learn how mandates land on the backs of educators who are already carrying too much.

And please, for the love of children and common sense, substitute occasionally.

Not as a punishment. As perspective.

There is something humbling about standing in front of a class and realizing that education is not as simple as the public often makes it sound. It is easy to say, “Teachers need to do more,” when you have never had to teach through trauma, poverty, apathy, skill gaps, phone distractions, behavior challenges, and administrative demands all in the same class period. It is easy to criticize schools from the board table when you have not walked the hallways during a real school day.

Perspective will not solve every problem, but it will change the tone of the conversation.

Imagine a school board where every member had to complete a certain number of school-based service hours each year. Imagine if they had to attend teacher professional development and submit public reflections on what they learned. Imagine if they had to spend time shadowing bus drivers, cafeteria workers, counselors, teachers, principals, interventionists, and students. Imagine if they had to substitute at least a few times during their term.

Now imagine how different board decisions might look.

Budgets might become more human.

Policies might become more practical.

Teacher support might become more urgent.

Student needs might become more visible.

Community trust might become more possible.

This is not about attacking school board members. This is about raising the standard for people who hold tremendous power over public education. If we expect teachers to be evaluated, principals to be held accountable, students to be tested, and schools to be rated, then why should school board members be allowed to operate without meaningful accountability?

Governance matters.

School boards hire superintendents. They approve budgets. They influence policy. They affect school culture. They shape priorities. They help determine whether a district grows, survives, or slowly declines while everyone pretends the problem is too complicated to name.

So yes, school board members need requirements.

They need current connection.

They need school-based experience.

They need professional learning.

They need term limits.

They need independence from the superintendent.

They need accountability.

Because our children do not have time for leadership that is ceremonial, disconnected, rubber-stamped, or ineffective. Our teachers do not have the emotional bandwidth to keep explaining classroom reality to people who refuse to come see it for themselves. Our communities cannot keep asking schools to produce better outcomes while electing or tolerating leadership that does not evolve.

If you want to govern schools, go inside one.

If you want to make decisions for teachers, spend time with them.

If you want to speak for children, sit where children sit.

If you want to control the direction of a district, be willing to learn the terrain.

And if you want to oversee a superintendent, have enough backbone to ask questions that matter.

The board seat should not be a throne.

It should not be a rubber stamp.

It should be a work station.

And if someone is not willing to do the homework, maybe they should not be allowed to keep the seat.

Reflection for Readers

Before the next school board election, ask yourself what you truly know about the people making decisions for your local schools. Do they visit schools beyond special events? Do they listen to teachers? Do they understand what students are experiencing? Are they visible in the community in meaningful ways, or do they only appear when it is politically convenient? Have they helped move the district forward, or have they simply held a seat long enough for everyone to recognize their name?

Public education belongs to the public, but public ownership requires public attention. We cannot complain about the condition of schools while ignoring the people elected to govern them. The next time someone asks for your vote, do not just ask what they believe. Ask what they have experienced. Ask when they last spent a full day in a school. Ask how they support teachers. Ask what they have learned recently about education. Ask what measurable progress happened under their leadership.

Also ask whether they understand the difference between supporting a superintendent and surrendering their responsibility to one. There is nothing wrong with a board and superintendent working together. In fact, healthy collaboration is necessary. But collaboration without accountability becomes complicity. A board member should be able to work with the superintendent while still asking hard questions, reviewing outcomes, challenging weak explanations, and standing with the community when concerns are valid.

If they cannot answer clearly, that tells you something.

Call to Action

Parents, pay attention before there is a crisis.

Teachers, keep telling the truth even when your voice shakes.

Community members, stop treating school board races like background noise.

Students, your experience matters, and adults need to hear from you.

School board members, get in the building.

Not for a picture.

Not for a program.

Not for applause.

Get in the building to learn.

And when you return to the board table, do not simply sit there and wait for the superintendent to tell you what to think. Ask the questions. Study the data. Listen to the people closest to the work. Vote with courage. Lead with conviction.

Because if you are going to make decisions about schools, you should be close enough to feel the weight of those decisions.

Let’s tell the truth: Black educators are often not given the same grace as white educators. And before someone starts clutching their pearls in the wrong direction, this is not about asking for special treatment. This is about asking for equal treatment. This is about asking why one educator can have a disagreement and be labeled “not a good fit,” while another can have a disagreement and later be handed a leadership opportunity. This is about the double standard that continues to live inside school systems while everyone pretends the evaluation rubric is colorblind.

I have lived this. I had a disagreement with a coworker and was asked to transfer. Not coached. Not restored. Not given the benefit of context. Not supported through conflict resolution in a way that preserved my dignity and recognized my professional contributions. I was asked to move. Years later, I watched a white boss experience conflict and disagreement, and instead of being professionally displaced, that person was recently named principal of a school.

Now let me be clear: this is not about saying that person should not lead. This is not about bitterness, revenge, or wanting someone else to be denied opportunity. The best person should always be leading schools. Students deserve competent, ethical, instructional, and emotionally intelligent leaders. But that is exactly the point. If the best person should lead, then the path to leadership must be fair. Accountability must be consistent. Conflict cannot be used as a career-ending label for one group and a temporary inconvenience for another.

That is where the educational system keeps crippling itself. We claim to want excellence, but too often we filter excellence through familiarity, comfort, race, politics, and who makes leadership feel least challenged. Black educators are often expected to be strong enough to carry broken systems but quiet enough not to critique them. We are expected to discipline students, mentor struggling teachers, connect with families, interpret culture, calm chaos, lead committees, speak for diversity, and absorb institutional dysfunction. But the moment we disagree, question, push back, or set a boundary, suddenly we are “too much.”

This grace gap shows up in many ways. A white educator may be described as “passionate,” while a Black educator with the same tone is described as “angry.” A white leader may be viewed as “firm,” while a Black leader is labeled “intimidating.” A white teacher may make a mistake and receive mentoring, while a Black teacher may make a mistake and receive documentation. A white administrator may have conflict and still be viewed as having “leadership potential,” while a Black administrator may have conflict and be quietly moved out of the way.

The pattern is not new. Historically, Black educators have always had to prove themselves inside systems that benefited from their labor but resisted their authority. After school desegregation, Black children were legally allowed into previously white schools, but Black teachers and principals were not equally welcomed into those same spaces of professional power. Many Black educators lost positions as schools merged, closed, and reorganized under white-controlled school boards and district leadership. In other words, integration opened doors for students while closing doors for many Black professionals who had been the backbone of Black educational communities.

That history matters because it did not disappear. It evolved. Today, the exclusion may not always be as obvious as a termination letter or a closed school building. Sometimes it looks like Black educators being passed over for leadership despite strong credentials. Sometimes it looks like being disciplined for “tone” instead of evaluated by impact. Sometimes it looks like being called to lead the hardest work but not trusted with the highest title. Sometimes it looks like being useful in crisis but invisible in promotion.

And let’s talk about how this affects learning environments, because this is not just an adult workplace issue. Students are watching. Teachers are watching. Families are watching. When a school system punishes Black educators more harshly, students learn something from that. They learn who gets protected. They learn who gets second chances. They learn whose voice is welcomed and whose voice is managed. They learn whether leadership is about competence or comfort.

This matters deeply for Black students, but not only Black students. All students benefit from schools where leadership is fair, diverse, qualified, and accountable. Black students deserve to see educators who look like them not just managing classrooms but leading schools. They deserve to see Black professionals trusted with authority, not merely assigned the invisible labor of fixing culture, calming behavior, and translating community needs. White students also benefit from seeing Black excellence in leadership because it disrupts stereotypes and teaches them that authority, intelligence, professionalism, and vision are not owned by one race.

When Black educators are pushed out, overlooked, or punished unfairly, schools lose more than staff members. They lose cultural knowledge. They lose relational capital. They lose mentors. They lose community trust. They lose people who often understand both the academic and social realities students bring into the building. And then districts sit around in meetings wondering why achievement gaps persist, why families do not trust schools, why teacher morale is low, and why students feel disconnected.

Well, part of the answer is sitting right there in the leadership pipeline.

You cannot improve learning outcomes while mishandling the people who are positioned to help improve them. You cannot claim to care about equity for students while practicing inequity with educators. You cannot recruit Black teachers for photo opportunities, diversity statements, and Black History Month panels, then deny them protection, promotion, and professional grace when it matters. Representation without respect is decoration. Diversity without power is performance.

This is not a request for Black educators to be excused from accountability. Let’s not play that game. Accountability is necessary. Professionalism matters. Leadership requires emotional intelligence, self-reflection, and the ability to work through conflict. But accountability must be applied evenly. If conflict makes one person “unfit,” then let that standard apply across the board. If growth is possible for one leader, then growth must be possible for another. If one educator can recover from a mistake, disagreement, or difficult season, then Black educators should not be permanently branded by the same human experience.

The question school systems must answer is simple: Are we choosing the best leaders, or are we choosing the most comfortable leaders?

Because there is a difference.

The best leader may not be the person who makes everyone comfortable. The best leader may be the person willing to name what is broken, challenge weak systems, advocate for children, confront inequity, and make decisions rooted in student outcomes rather than adult convenience. The best leader may not always be the person who has been protected by the system. Sometimes the best leader is the one who survived the system and still has the courage to improve it.

If our educational system is serious about improvement, then leadership selection, discipline, promotion, and retention must be examined with honesty. Districts need to audit who gets coached and who gets written up. Who gets transferred and who gets promoted. Who gets labeled difficult and who gets labeled passionate. Who gets mentored into leadership and who gets managed out of opportunity. Those patterns are not accidental. They are data.

School boards, superintendents, and district leaders must stop hiding behind vague language like “fit” and “leadership style” when those words are being used to protect bias. They must create transparent leadership pathways, use diverse hiring panels, examine discipline and transfer patterns by race, and ensure that conflict resolution is not selectively weaponized. They must evaluate leaders by measurable outcomes, ethical practice, instructional capacity, school climate, teacher retention, family engagement, and student growth—not by who feels familiar or politically safe.

Educators also have a role to play. We must document, speak truth, mentor one another, and refuse to normalize inequitable treatment. White educators who say they believe in equity must be willing to notice when grace is unevenly distributed. Silence is not neutrality. Silence protects the pattern.

And for Black educators, hear me clearly: your voice is not automatically a problem. Your standards are not automatically attitude. Your advocacy is not automatically aggression. Your disagreement is not automatically disrespect. You are allowed to be professional and passionate. You are allowed to be reflective and firm. You are allowed to grow without being discarded.

The call to action is this: if we want better outcomes for children, we must build better systems for the adults who serve them. That begins with fair accountability, equitable leadership opportunities, and the courage to confront the grace gap in education. The goal is not to replace one form of bias with another. The goal is to make sure the most qualified, student-centered, instructionally strong, emotionally intelligent, and ethically grounded people are leading schools.

Not because they are Black.

Not because they are white.

But because they are the best person for the work.

And when we finally get honest about who gets grace, who gets power, and who gets pushed out, we may finally begin to build schools where adults are treated fairly and students have a real chance to thrive.

“What are the school counselors doing to support students?”

I paused before answering, not because I did not know the answer, but because I was trying to figure out where to begin. The question itself revealed something many people outside of schools genuinely do not understand: most school counselors are carrying responsibilities far beyond what the public sees. Their work is often invisible unless there is a crisis, a scheduling issue, or a student emergency that suddenly demands immediate attention.

So I answered honestly.

School counselors are doing everything.

And I do not say that for dramatic effect. I say it because in many schools across this country, counselors have quietly become the emotional, academic, behavioral, and logistical backbone of the building. They are expected to help students navigate academics, mental health, family instability, peer conflict, future planning, grief, trauma, attendance issues, behavior concerns, testing coordination, and graduation requirements simultaneously. Then, on top of all of that, they are often assigned duties and responsibilities that have very little to do with counseling at all.

The average person sees a counselor’s office and assumes students simply walk in to discuss college applications or class schedules. That perception is outdated and dangerously incomplete. Today’s school counselors are supporting students who are experiencing anxiety, depression, housing insecurity, food insecurity, abuse, neglect, self-harm ideation, family instability, social media harassment, violence, and overwhelming academic pressure. Some students enter the counselor’s office carrying burdens that many adults would struggle to process.

Counselors are often the first people to notice when a student begins withdrawing socially, when grades suddenly drop, when attendance patterns shift, or when behavior changes dramatically. They are the adults students confide in when they are afraid to talk to anyone else. In many cases, counselors are helping students survive situations while simultaneously trying to help them succeed academically.

What makes this even more concerning is that many schools continue to ignore the recommendations outlined by the American School Counselor Association regarding appropriate counselor responsibilities and student-to-counselor ratios. According to ASCA, school counselors should spend the majority of their time providing direct and indirect services to students through counseling, academic planning, career readiness, and social-emotional support. Yet in far too many schools, counselors are overloaded with administrative duties that significantly reduce the time they can spend actually counseling students.

Instead of being allowed to function primarily as mental health and academic support professionals, counselors are frequently tasked with coordinating standardized testing, handling endless paperwork, covering classes, managing lunch or bus duty, troubleshooting schedules, processing transcripts, tracking credits, monitoring attendance, organizing records, and responding to every crisis situation that emerges throughout the school day. Some counselors are responsible for hundreds of students at one time, making meaningful individualized support nearly impossible without sacrificing their own emotional well-being.

And despite these impossible workloads, people still ask why students are struggling emotionally.

People still ask why schools seem overwhelmed.

People still ask why counselors cannot “fix” every issue immediately.

The truth is that school counselors were never designed to function as one-person intervention teams for entire school communities. Yet that is exactly what many have become.

As an educator and former administrator, I have seen firsthand how often school counselors become the catch-all solution for every unresolved issue in a building. A student is failing academically? Send them to the counselor. A student is having behavior issues? Send them to the counselor. A parent is upset? Counselor. Attendance concerns? Counselor. Student conflict? Counselor. Graduation concerns? Counselor. Mental health crisis? Counselor. Career planning? Counselor. Testing anxiety? Counselor.

Meanwhile, many counselors are trying to manage these responsibilities while carrying caseloads that make it difficult to provide the depth of support students truly deserve.

What concerns me most is how normalized this has become in education. We have grown accustomed to asking counselors to absorb enormous emotional and operational burdens without providing the staffing, resources, or systemic support necessary for sustainable success. Then we wonder why burnout rates are so high in helping professions within schools.

School counselors are not failing schools.

Schools are failing to properly support school counselors.

That distinction matters.

It is also important to recognize that effective student support cannot rest solely on the shoulders of counselors. Supporting children requires collaboration from every adult connected to the school community. Administrators must protect counselors’ time and ensure they are being utilized appropriately instead of assigning excessive non-counseling duties. Teachers must communicate concerns early and partner with counselors proactively instead of waiting until situations escalate into full crises. Parents must answer calls, attend meetings, reinforce support plans at home, and view counselors as allies rather than emergency contacts of last resort. Students themselves must also learn how to communicate openly, seek help appropriately, and participate actively in their own growth and accountability.

School counselors should not operate as isolated emergency response units inside school buildings.

They should be part of collaborative systems of care.

When schools function well, counselors are able to do the work they were trained to do: build relationships, provide preventive support, guide academic planning, support social-emotional development, assist with career readiness, and help students develop the tools necessary to navigate life successfully. But when systems are dysfunctional, counselors spend most of their time putting out fires instead of building long-term solutions.

And let me say this directly to the counselors reading this:

People may not always see the full weight of what you carry, but many of us do.

We see the emotional exhaustion hidden behind professionalism. We see the constant multitasking, the overflowing caseloads, the crisis management, the difficult conversations, and the quiet moments where you are trying to hold yourself together while helping students hold themselves together too. We see the late afternoons spent calling parents, the paperwork completed after hours, and the emotional energy required to show compassion day after day even when you are running on empty yourself.

You are often expected to be calm during chaos, compassionate during conflict, organized during emergencies, and emotionally available at all times.

That is not light work.

And despite all of it, school counselors continue showing up for students every single day.

So the next time someone asks, “What are school counselors doing?” I hope educators answer without hesitation.

They are helping students navigate life in one of the most emotionally complex eras young people have ever experienced. They are supporting academic achievement while simultaneously addressing emotional wellness, family instability, social pressures, trauma, and future planning. They are carrying responsibilities that frequently extend far beyond their official job descriptions.

Most importantly, they are doing work that schools simply cannot function without.

A Call to Action

If we truly care about student success, then supporting school counselors can no longer be treated as optional or secondary. Educational systems must move beyond performative appreciation during “School Counseling Week” and begin making structural changes that protect counselors and strengthen student support services year-round.

Administrators must evaluate whether counselors are being used in ways that align with the recommendations of the American School Counselor Association. Every unnecessary non-counseling duty assigned to a counselor is time taken away from students who may desperately need support. School leaders must advocate for manageable caseloads, increased mental health resources, clerical support, and systems that allow counselors to focus on counseling rather than functioning primarily as operational support staff.

Teachers must recognize counselors as collaborative partners rather than emergency exits for difficult situations. Strong communication, early intervention, and consistent collaboration can prevent many student issues from escalating into full crises. Supporting students is shared work, not delegated work.

Parents must engage proactively with schools and counselors. Too often, communication only occurs after grades have failed, attendance has become chronic, or behavior has intensified. Counselors cannot build effective support systems without active family involvement, responsiveness, and partnership.

Students must also learn that seeking help is not weakness. Counselors are not only there for schedules and emergencies. They are there to help students navigate challenges, set goals, advocate for themselves, and develop skills that extend far beyond graduation.

And finally, policymakers and district leaders must stop expecting miracle outcomes from severely understaffed counseling departments. If we are serious about addressing student mental health, school safety, academic recovery, college readiness, and social-emotional development, then investment in school counseling programs must become a priority rather than an afterthought.

Because the reality is simple:

You cannot continue placing the emotional weight of entire school communities onto school counselors while denying them the staffing, time, resources, and systemic support needed to do the work effectively.

At some point, appreciation must turn into action.

Our students deserve supported counselors.

And our counselors deserve supported systems.

Read more

Read more

The energy changes.

Hallways become quieter. Electives suddenly become less important. Intervention groups multiply overnight. Pep rallies are replaced with motivational speeches about “doing your best.” Teachers are told to “lock in.” Administrators start monitoring data walls like stockbrokers watching the market before a crash.

And for weeks, sometimes months, schools operate under one overwhelming reality:

Everything rides on test scores.

One test.
One snapshot.
One accountability rating.
One label that can shape public perception for an entire year.

An “A” school.
A “failing” school.
“High-performing.”
“Needs improvement.”

As if the complexity of educating children—actual human beings with wildly different needs, home lives, traumas, abilities, and learning gaps—can be fully captured inside a testing window.

And maybe that’s the part that has never sat right with me.

Because what if state accountability models measured the things that actually influence student achievement all year long instead of disproportionately centering standardized testing?

What if accountability included teacher retention?
Teacher efficacy?
Student attendance?
Parent involvement?
School climate?
Access to interventions?
Student engagement?
Community partnerships?
Discipline trends?
Teacher-student relationships?

You know… the things educators talk about in every professional development session but somehow disappear when accountability ratings are calculated.

Now before someone says, “Well schools already collect that data,” let’s stop right there.

There is a difference between collecting information and assigning value to it.

Schools collect plenty of data that ultimately carries very little weight in accountability systems. And because it carries little weight, it receives little urgency. What gets prioritized in education is whatever gets measured the hardest.

Right now, standardized testing is king.

And whether people want to admit it or not, that reality shapes decision-making at every level.

When the Score Becomes More Important Than the Student

Somewhere along the way, many schools stopped asking, “Are students learning?” and started asking, “How do we get the numbers up?”

Those are not the same question.

One is rooted in authentic growth.
The other is rooted in performance metrics.

And when schools become consumed with performance metrics, strange things begin to happen.

Curriculum narrows.
Creativity shrinks.
Teachers burn out.
Students disengage.
Social promotion increases.
Credit recovery becomes a revolving door.
Grades mysteriously inflate.
And suddenly everybody is “graduating,” but fewer people are actually prepared.

Let’s tell the truth that makes people uncomfortable:

There are students graduating right now who are not college-ready, career-ready, or life-ready.

Not because they lack intelligence.
Not because they lack potential.

But because systems have become more invested in accountability optics than accountability outcomes.

That distinction matters.

Because if a school earns an “A” rating while teachers are leaving in droves, chronic absenteeism is rampant, morale is in the basement, and students cannot independently read, write, or problem solve at grade level… what exactly are we celebrating?

And no, that is not an attack on schools.

That is a challenge to the system itself.

Teacher Retention Is Not Separate From Student Achievement

One of the strangest things about modern accountability models is how disconnected they are from the adults doing the teaching.

We know teacher quality matters. Research has said this repeatedly for years. Yet many districts are experiencing severe teacher turnover, staffing shortages, and burnout at levels education has rarely seen before.

Some schools have students cycling through long-term substitutes, uncertified teachers, virtual programs, or constant staff vacancies.

But somehow, accountability models rarely stop to ask:
Why are teachers leaving?
Why are effective educators burned out?
Why are some schools unable to retain instructional talent year after year?

Imagine if schools were rewarded not just for test scores, but for creating environments where effective educators actually wanted to stay.

Imagine if teacher efficacy mattered as much as proficiency percentages.

Imagine if educational leadership was evaluated not just on compliance and data presentations, but on instructional support, school culture, and staff sustainability.

Because stable schools create stable learning environments.

And students can absolutely feel when the adults in a building are exhausted, unsupported, and overwhelmed.

Student Attendance Tells a Bigger Story

Let’s talk about attendance.

We know students cannot learn if they are not present. That sounds simple enough, yet chronic absenteeism continues to rise across the country.

But instead of deeply examining why students are disengaging from school, many systems simply punish the absence itself.

Here’s a difficult question:

What if chronic absenteeism is not just a student problem, but also a systems problem?

What if students are disconnected because they no longer see school as meaningful?
What if families feel unsupported?
What if mental health challenges, transportation barriers, housing instability, or community violence are impacting attendance more than schools want to acknowledge?

And what if accountability systems forced us to confront those realities instead of simply posting attendance percentages in a spreadsheet?

Because attendance data tells a story far beyond numbers.

It tells us whether students feel connected.
Whether families trust schools.
Whether students feel safe.
Whether learning feels relevant.
Whether schools are serving students academically and emotionally.

That matters.

Parent Involvement Cannot Keep Being the Forgotten Variable

Education has quietly normalized an impossible expectation:
Schools are expected to solve every societal problem while being blamed for every societal outcome.

And somewhere in that expectation, authentic family partnership became optional instead of essential.

Parent involvement matters.
Communication matters.
Reinforcement at home matters.
Educational advocacy matters.

Yet accountability systems rarely meaningfully capture the strength of school-home-community relationships.

Imagine if schools were rewarded for increasing authentic parent engagement instead of simply documenting compliance activities.

Because let’s be honest:
Sending home a flyer nobody reads is not engagement.
Collecting signatures on forms is not partnership.
One crowded open house night is not family collaboration.

Real parent involvement looks like trust.
Consistency.
Communication.
Shared accountability.
Collective investment in children.

And yes, schools carry responsibility.
But families and communities do too.

That may not be popular to say, but it is true.

The Problem With Snapshot Accountability

The biggest flaw in current accountability systems may be this:

They often prioritize short-term performance over long-term development.

Schools can spend months building relationships, improving school culture, implementing interventions, reducing behavior referrals, increasing literacy support, and creating growth opportunities for students…

Only for the entire narrative to come down to how students performed during a testing window.

And if scores dip?
None of the growth matters publicly.

Not the mentoring.
Not the counseling.
Not the attendance improvements.
Not the intervention work.
Not the student relationships.
Not the teacher growth.
Not the progress.

Just the score.

That creates dangerous incentives.

Because when survival depends almost entirely on scores, systems naturally become more focused on producing numbers than producing transformation.

And unfortunately, children can tell the difference.

So What Would Real Accountability Look Like?

Real accountability would still include academic performance.
Absolutely.

But it would also recognize that student achievement is influenced by an ecosystem—not a single test session.

Real accountability would ask:
Are students growing academically?
Are teachers staying?
Are students attending?
Are families engaged?
Are interventions working?
Are students safe?
Are graduates truly prepared?
Are schools building sustainable success or temporary performance spikes?

Because education is not a factory assembly line.

It is human work.

Messy work.
Complex work.
Relationship-centered work.

And maybe the reason so many educators are exhausted is because they are being asked to produce human outcomes inside systems designed to prioritize numerical ones.

A Call to Action: We Need Courageous Conversations

At some point, educators, policymakers, parents, and communities are going to have to stop pretending the current accountability model tells the full story.

It does not.

A school is more than a test score.
A child is more than a proficiency level.
A teacher is more than a data point.

If we truly want to improve education, then we must demand accountability systems that measure the conditions that create learning—not just the outcomes produced during testing season.

That means policymakers must be willing to rethink what success actually looks like.
School leaders must be brave enough to prioritize sustainability over appearances.
Teachers must continue advocating for students beyond compliance.
Parents and communities must become active participants instead of occasional spectators.

And perhaps most importantly, we must stop confusing performance with progress.

Because the reality is this:
A school can look successful on paper while students silently struggle inside the building every single day.

That should concern all of us.

The future of education cannot simply be about producing higher scores.
It must be about producing healthier school cultures, stronger instructional practices, engaged families, supported educators, and students who are genuinely prepared for life beyond graduation.

Not just prepared to pass a test.

Prepared to think.
Prepared to lead.
Prepared to contribute.
Prepared to thrive.

And until accountability systems begin measuring what actually matters, education will continue chasing numbers while missing the people behind them.

Maybe it is time for that conversation to stop being uncomfortable and start becoming necessary

.

The Class of 2026 is filled with brilliance, creativity, resilience, and potential. Some graduates will become nurses, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs, electricians, welders, law enforcement officers, social workers, military leaders, and business owners. Some will build generational wealth for families that have spent decades simply trying to survive. Some will return home and become mentors in communities that desperately need them. Others will quietly change lives in ways the world may never publicly applaud, but their impact will still matter tremendously.

There is no question that many students are prepared to thrive after high school.

But somewhere between the carefully staged graduation photos, polished district press releases, and celebrations about rising graduation rates sits an uncomfortable truth that far too many people in education are afraid to say publicly:

Some students are graduating academically, emotionally, and professionally unprepared for what comes next.

Not because they are lazy.

Not because they lack intelligence.

Not because they are incapable of success.

But because they matriculated through educational systems that often prioritized passing over proficiency, convenience over accountability, and optics over outcomes.

And yes, that should make people uncomfortable.

The Problem Is Not Public Education

Before people begin clutching pearls and preparing angry responses, let’s make one thing crystal clear: public schools are not the enemy.

Public education remains one of the most important institutions in this country. Every day, teachers walk into classrooms carrying burdens far beyond instruction. They buy supplies with their own money. They mentor students through trauma. They attend games, concerts, funerals, and graduation ceremonies. They answer emails late at night and spend weekends planning lessons for children who may never fully understand how deeply they are cared for by the adults teaching them.

The issue is not that educators do not care.

The issue is that too many educational systems have become obsessed with protecting appearances while quietly lowering standards necessary for genuine student success.

Some leaders have become more committed to preserving graduation percentages, accountability ratings, and district image than ensuring students actually possess the skills necessary to navigate adulthood successfully.

And there is a major difference between those two things.

Because increasing graduation rates means very little if students leave school unable to function independently in college, careers, the military, or life.

At some point, we have to ask ourselves a difficult question:

Are we preparing students for life, or are we simply preparing data for presentations?

The Statement I Could Never Forget

One experience permanently changed the way I viewed educational leadership and accountability.

During my time as a school administrator, I once had a former assistant superintendent say something to me that I have never been able to forget:

“Our job is to get them graduated. What happens next isn’t our responsibility.”

I remember sitting there stunned by how casually those words were spoken.

Not because I believed that individual was uniquely cruel or uncaring, but because that statement exposed a mindset that quietly exists in far too many educational spaces. It revealed what happens when graduation becomes the destination instead of preparation becoming the mission.

That mentality explains why some systems celebrate students crossing stages while ignoring whether those same students can successfully cross into adulthood.

Because once the goal becomes simply getting students to graduation day, standards eventually become flexible. Accountability becomes negotiable. Mastery becomes secondary. Educational decisions slowly begin revolving around numbers instead of people.

But education was never supposed to be a conveyor belt moving students toward diplomas regardless of readiness.

A diploma is supposed to represent something meaningful. It should symbolize growth, discipline, skill development, resilience, and preparedness for the next chapter of life. It should not merely represent survival, seat time, or successful navigation of lowered expectations.

The moment educational leaders adopt the belief that what happens after graduation is “someone else’s problem,” students inevitably become statistics to move instead of lives to develop.

And the consequences of that mindset show up everywhere.

They show up in college freshmen sitting in remedial courses despite graduating with acceptable GPAs. They show up in young adults struggling to communicate professionally during interviews. They show up in graduates entering the workforce lacking basic time management, writing, and problem-solving skills. They show up in young people who spent years receiving praise academically but privately feel overwhelmed the moment real-world expectations are no longer adjustable.

Schools cannot control every outcome in a student’s life. That is true.

But educational leadership absolutely carries a responsibility to ensure students leave school as prepared as possible academically, emotionally, socially, and professionally.

To suggest otherwise is not only shortsighted — it is dangerous.

The Numbers Look Good — Until Reality Shows Up

On paper, many schools appear incredibly successful.

Graduation rates increase. Suspension numbers decrease. Failure rates drop. Accountability labels improve. Districts proudly advertise “student achievement” and “record growth.” Public relations campaigns celebrate educational progress with smiling photos and carefully worded captions.

But real life has a way of exposing what statistics attempt to conceal.

A student can graduate high school and still struggle to complete a job application independently.

A student can earn enough credits to receive a diploma while lacking the reading comprehension necessary for college coursework, military training, workplace certifications, or financial literacy.

A student can pass classes while never truly mastering communication, writing, critical thinking, or problem-solving skills.

And unfortunately, this is happening far more often than people are willing to admit publicly.

There are graduates entering college only to discover they require remediation before taking credit-bearing courses. There are graduates entering the workforce unable to write professional emails, communicate effectively during interviews, or manage deadlines independently. There are graduates entering adulthood completely unfamiliar with budgeting, conflict resolution, discipline, or accountability because systems consistently protected them from consequences throughout their educational journey.

And somehow, we continue calling this success because the graduation percentage increased.

At what point do we stop confusing completion with competency?

Because those two things are not the same.

The “Everybody Passes” Culture Is Hurting Students

There was a time when accountability in education was viewed as preparation. Now, accountability is often treated like cruelty.

Students can repeatedly fail to submit assignments and still pass courses through endless recovery opportunities.

Attendance policies are weakened because absenteeism negatively impacts school data.

Online credit recovery platforms, while valuable when used appropriately, are sometimes utilized less as interventions and more as image-protection strategies designed to preserve graduation rates.

And before anyone pretends this conversation is exaggerated, let’s tell the truth plainly:

Everyone working in education knows exactly what this article is talking about.

There are schools where teachers feel pressured to “find a way” for students to pass regardless of mastery.

There are schools where rigor quietly disappears because failing grades create uncomfortable conversations with parents, school boards, or district personnel.

There are schools where discipline policies have become so ineffective that classroom disruptions consume instructional time daily while teachers are simultaneously expected to produce high academic performance data.

There are schools where students quickly learn that deadlines are flexible, standards are negotiable, and effort is optional because eventually someone will lower expectations to help them cross the finish line.

That is not compassion.

That is not equity.

That is institutionalized avoidance disguised as student support.

And the people most harmed by it are the students themselves.

Accountability Is an Act of Love

One of the most damaging messages schools can send young people is that expectations are oppressive.

Real accountability teaches responsibility, resilience, discipline, ownership, and perseverance. Those skills matter long after graduation ceremonies end.

Employers will not repeatedly reopen missed deadlines because someone lacked motivation.

Professors will not continuously excuse incomplete work because a student chose not to manage their time.

Military leadership will not lower standards because accountability feels uncomfortable.

The real world eventually introduces consequences whether schools prepare students for them or not.

And when schools consistently remove accountability in the name of “helping” students, what they are often really doing is delaying reality until the stakes become much higher.

A missed high school assignment may result in summer school.

A missed workplace responsibility may result in unemployment.

There is a difference.

Students deserve environments that challenge them while supporting them. They deserve adults willing to tell them the truth instead of simply protecting their feelings temporarily.

Many Students Never Truly Discover Who They Are

One of the greatest failures within modern education is that many students never truly get the opportunity to discover their strengths because schools remain overly focused on standardized pathways to success.

Some students are gifted with their hands and would thrive in skilled trades, technical careers, or entrepreneurship, yet they are pushed toward traditional college paths they were never passionate about pursuing.

Some students are creatives trapped in systems that reward compliance more than innovation.

Some students need intensive academic intervention early but instead learn how to survive academically without genuinely mastering foundational skills.

Others quietly internalize failure after years of struggling in systems that made them feel inadequate instead of supported.

Education should help students discover identity, purpose, strengths, and possibilities.

Instead, too many students graduate emotionally exhausted, academically underdeveloped, and uncertain about who they are outside of grades, test scores, or survival.

And perhaps the hardest truth of all is this:

Many students know they are unprepared long before graduation day arrives.

They simply become experts at pretending otherwise because the adults around them are doing the same thing.

So What Needs to Change?

For Students

Stop treating graduation as the finish line when it is actually the beginning of a much harder race. Ask questions. Seek help. Read more. Write more. Learn practical life skills. Develop discipline before adulthood demands it from you without warning. Your diploma may open doors, but your habits, skills, and character will determine whether you can remain in the rooms you enter.

For Parents

Stop focusing only on grades and ask deeper questions:

• Can my child communicate effectively?

• Can they solve problems independently?

• Can they handle criticism and adversity?

• Are they actually learning or simply completing assignments for points?

Children need support, but they also need structure, accountability, and expectations.

For Teachers

Continue fighting for standards even when systems make it difficult. Students deserve rigor alongside support. They deserve educators who challenge them, believe in them, and refuse to reduce education to box-checking exercises. Standards matter because students matter.

For Administrators

Leadership is not protecting numbers at all costs. Leadership is having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths even when they threaten public image.

A polished school improvement presentation means very little if graduates cannot function independently after leaving school.

Protecting standards may create short-term discomfort, but lowering standards creates long-term damage.

For Communities

Communities cannot abandon young people and then criticize schools for every societal failure. Students need mentorship, internships, tutoring, literacy initiatives, mental health support, career exposure, and positive adult relationships outside classroom walls.

Educational success has never been the responsibility of schools alone.

The Real Question We Should Be Asking

Twenty years from now, nobody is going to care what a district’s graduation rate was in 2026.

Nobody is going to remember the polished social media graphics, carefully worded press releases, or accountability slogans displayed during school board meetings.

What people will care about is whether graduates became capable adults.

Can they sustain careers?

Can they communicate effectively?

Can they think critically?

Can they adapt when life becomes difficult?

Can they contribute meaningfully to families, workplaces, and communities?

Can they survive independently without systems constantly lowering expectations around them?

Those are the metrics that truly matter.

Not optics.

Not inflated success narratives.

Not data designed to make adults feel accomplished while students quietly struggle behind the scenes.

Preparation over presentation.

Substance over statistics.

Students over optics.

Call to Action

If you are an educator, lead courageously instead of comfortably.

If you are a parent, partner intentionally instead of settling for superficial success.

If you are a student, demand more from yourself than simple completion.

If you are an administrator, remember that protecting standards protects students.

If you are a community member, invest in young people long before graduation day arrives.

Because the goal was never simply to graduate students.

The goal was to prepare them for life.

And until educational systems become brave enough to prioritize preparation over presentation, we will continue celebrating diplomas while quietly ignoring the growing number of graduates who were never truly prepared to carry them.

Read more