Michigan Mother Found Guilty of Manslaughter in Her Son’s School Shooting

Should Schools Lean-In to Hold Parents More Accountable for their Children’s Behavior?

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction

   On November 30, 2021, fifteen-year-old Ethan Crumbley brought a 9mm semi-automatic handgun into his school, using it to murder four students and injure seven others—including a teacher. Charged as an adult with 24 crimes, including murder and terrorism, he pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced two years later to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

   On December 3, 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley—Ethan’s parents—were charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to secure the handgun used by their son. In fact, James had purchased the gun for Ethan four days before the shooting, and Jennifer was captured on security video leaving a shooting range the next day with Ethan and the handgun.

   According to testimony during Jennifer’s case, the two had been taking target practice in what she described on social media as a “mom and son day testing out his new Christmas present.” Ethan referred to his gun online as “My new beauty.”

   Critically, both parents knew that Ethan had mental health issues. Indeed, in the days before the shooting, school officials met with Crumbley’s parents to share a picture he had drawn of a gun, a bullet, and a person who had been shot twice and was bleeding.

   On the day of the shooting, Ethan was taken out of class and was interviewed by school personnel. And yet, despite the mental health concerns and the picture, both school personnel and his parents allowed Ethan to return to class that day—rather than sending him home. The shooting followed around 1 PM.

_ _ _ _ _

   Just this week, on February 6, 2024, Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, and she now faces up to 60 years in prison. According to CNN,

 

With this verdict, Jennifer Crumbley became the first US parent of a school shooter to be held accountable for the slayings. Citing the prosecution, Crumbley was “grossly negligent” in handing out a gun to her son, Ethan.

 

Meanwhile, she never did anything to give her son proper treatment for his mental health problems. The prosecutors presented testimonies from law enforcement officials, shooting victims, school employees, and people who had known Crumbley.

 

“Even though she didn’t pull the trigger on Nov. 30 [2021], she’s responsible for those deaths,” said Oakland County (MI) assistant prosecutor Marc Keast. The parents “didn’t do a number of tragically small and easy things that would have prevented this from happening.”

   Jame Crumbley’s trial is scheduled in March. The parents’ trials were separated at their request. 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 When Schools Counsel Parents to Get their Children Counseling

   As a longtime school psychologist, I can remember countless parent conferences where we implored parents to get their children social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health help from community-based professionals. While we were providing services at the school, their children’s challenges were so evident across multiple settings, or so intense or unusual that our school-based mental health resources were not enough.

   Typically, these parent conferences focused on issues related to their children’s suicidal ideation, trauma, stress, anxiety, depression, fear, eating or sleep disorders, and more. But they also included issues related to anger, violence, hyperactivity, sexual misconduct, anti-social interactions, oppositional defiance, and cutting or self-mutilation.

   These conferences also often addressed (a) students’ sleep, diet, weight, exercise, and hygiene; (b) their organizational skills, motivation, homework completion, and school attendance; and (c) their social and emotional welfare, and quality and effectiveness of parent supervision.

   Significantly, during these conferences, we could only recommend outside services to our parents. . . we could not require them to act.

   In extreme cases, we might send the involved parents a certified letter documenting our concerns and recommendations. Or, we might report them to the local social service or child protective agency. These approaches, quite honestly, rarely changed the parents’ behavior, and they often further weakened our relationships with them.

   In other cases, some districts forbid their teachers, related service professionals, or administrators to even recommend outside services. . . because they fear that they then become responsible to pay for them.

   None of this serves our students in critical need well. They often do not get the needed community-based services and, as above, a school’s good faith efforts are sometimes unwelcome or interpreted as intrusive.

_ _ _ _ _

   With the Jennifer Crumbley decision this week, however, we wonder:

·       Will this decision move the pendulum toward greater parental accountability when schools recommend outside supports to address their children’s significant health, mental health, and wellness needs; 

·       Will the threat of litigation motivate these parents to take timely and effective action—consistent with the recommendations; and

·       Will schools become more assertive in their interactions with parents, especially when there is a documented threat of student, staff, and school violence?

   Only time will tell, but certainly schools and parents need to “sit up” and take notice.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What “Motivates” Parents to Follow School Recommendations?

   When I was a “little” school psychologist-in-training at Syracuse University, I spent two years as a practicum student with Dr. Tony Conti, a master school psychologist in the Westhill School District. Tony was kind, patient, wise, creative, an expert in so many areas, and my most-influential mentor.

   While he tragically died when he was 42, Tony also greatly influenced the field of school psychology... helping us especially to understand why parents follow (or don’t follow) our recommendations for outside services and support.

   Tony’s 1975 article, “Variables Related To Contacting/Not Contacting Counseling Services Recommended By School Psychologists,” was a first of its kind. It reported on the variables that most-predicted parents’ acceptance and follow-through on our school-based recommendations for counseling services for their children.

   Expanding on and updating Tony’s research for schools and districts in 2024, we now have a science-to-practice blueprint on how to best frame our parental recommendations so that they actually engage the community-based services needed—for a wide range of challenges—by their children.

   Reflecting on our earlier discussion: Would this blueprint have changed James and Jennifer Crumbley’s decisions (a) to not buy their son a gun; (b) to, at least, secure the gun so that it was completely inaccessible to their son; and/or (c) to get their son the mental health support that it appears he needed?

   We don’t know for sure.

   But any of these three decisions might have saved four students’ lives, seven students’ and teachers’ injuries, hundreds of students’ and families’ traumas, one now-seventeen year old adolescent’s lifetime in prison, and one (maybe, two) manslaughter incarcerations against two parents.

   And so. . . based on a search of past and current research, the factors that most influence parents to follow school personnel’s recommendations for community-based services include:

• Perceived Need: People are more likely to seek community-based services when they see their child’s need for emotional support, guidance, or problem-solving. When they recognize their child’s distress or struggles, they are more inclined to reach out for professional help.

• Stigma and Social Norms: Societal, community, friends, and family members’ attitudes associated with mental health services can impact parents’ decisions. Fear of judgment or negative perceptions may discourage some from seeking community-based, while others may prioritize their well-being regardless of societal norms.

• Awareness and Knowledge: Awareness about community-based services and their benefits is crucial. Parents who are informed about available resources are more likely to seek help. Lack of awareness or misconceptions can hinder access to community-based.

• Cultural Factors: Cultural beliefs, values, and practices influence help-seeking behavior. Some cultures may encourage seeking support from family or religious leaders—rather than community-based professionals. Competence and sensitivity are essential for effective discussions with parents from different racial, cultural, socio-economic, and other diverse backgrounds.

• Personal Coping Strategies: People with strong coping skills may rely on self-help methods or informal support networks. Conversely, those who struggle to cope independently may be more motivated to seek professional assistance.

• Severity of Symptoms: The severity of a child’s emotional distress, behavioral gaps, academic failures, or mental health symptoms plays a significant role in parents’ decision to act. Parents with children experiencing intense distress or persistent symptoms are more likely to seek professional help.

• Previous Experiences: Positive or negative experiences with community-based or mental health services can shape parents’ future decisions. A successful past community-based experience may encourage someone to seek help again, while negative encounters may deter them.

• Social Support: The availability of supportive friends, family, or peers can influence parents’ help-seeking behavior (positively or negatively). While perhaps counter-intuitive, strong social networks may provide emotional support, reducing the urgency to seek professional community-based.

• Financial and Practical Constraints: Practical considerations—such as cost, insurance coverage, transportation, and time availability—impact parents’ decisions to engage with community-based services. Limited resources or logistical challenges sometimes override parents’ understanding and commitment to their child’s needs.

• Trust in the Therapeutic Relationship: Initial trust and rapport with a community-based professional significantly affect long-term parental engagement and commitment. A positive therapeutic alliance encourages continued contact, while a lack of trust may lead to discontinuation.

_ _ _ _ _

   Clearly, in order to strategically select the “right” factors above and the best way to communicate them, school personnel must have the positive relationships, the experiential knowledge, and a history of collaborative interactions with parents who have significantly struggling or challenging children. As each situation is unique, there is no “tried and true” sequence or approach. . . each interaction must be individualized to each parent and child. 

   But beyond the blueprint, parents respond best when school personnel are empathetic, constructive, and future-focused. School personnel need to be seen as allies, and they need to be actively involved in removing barriers. For example, school personnel may need to vet and identify the best outside community resources for a specific student. They may need to provide transportation). They may need to investigate funding and payment options. And they definitely need to check-in with parents on a regular basis.

   While these activities may require more time than for the “typical” student case, this time may facilitate a student’s long-term success, and save other students (and staff) from catastrophic events that involve trauma, physical injuries, and death.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   While framed in tragedy, the Jennifer Crumbley court decision this week should be (a) a wake-up call for parents who know that they and their child are struggling with academic, social, emotional, behavioral, and/or mental health problems; and (b) permission for schools to strategically recommend community-based services when they are warranted, and to hold parents more accountable for following these recommendations in a timely and responsible way.

   While school personnel, as in the section immediately above, need to forge strong relationships with the parents in these situations, they also need to understand where these parents are coming from so that their communications and recommendations can be heard, accepted, and followed.

   There is no “one way” to do this. . . but the “wrong way” typically results in parental defensiveness, withdrawal, anger, and their rejection of the recommendations being made.

   For now, school personnel need to discuss the implications of the Ethan, Jennifer, and James Crumbley cases. . . and what occurred at Oxford High School in Oxford Township, Michigan in 2021... for everyone involved. They need to discuss the implications with their parent leaders. . . and the factors that most-influence parents to get the community-based services that their children need.

   The Crumbleys should represent a cautionary tale.

   Schools need to learn from this tale, acting assertively and with determination. . . and not with fear or caution.

   While schools cannot provide all the services needed by our children. . . they can serve our most involved and at-risk students by convincing their parents to take the actions needed to address their significant needs.

_ _ _ _ _

   My Friends: A lot of my school and district consultation work is funded by (often, five-year) federal grants from the U.S. Department of Education that I write for and with the districts who are interested in implementing my work.

   A new $4 million grant program is coming up in a few months that needs a single moderate to large school district with at least 25 elementary schools.

   As we can submit multiple grants from different districts, if you are interested in discussing this grant and a partnership with me, call (813-495-3318) or drop me an e-mail as soon as possible (howieknoff1@projectachieve.info).

   Another five-year $4 million grant program will likely be announced a year from now. This program will be open to districts of all sizes. If you are interested, once again, it is not too early to talk.

   BOTH grant programs focus on (a) school safety, climate, and discipline; (b) classroom relationships, behavior management, and engagement; and (c) teaching students interpersonal, conflict prevention and resolution, social problem-solving, and emotional awareness, control, communication, and coping skills and interactions.

   Beyond these grants, if you are interested in my work for your educational setting, I am happy to provide a free consultation with you and your team to discuss needs, current status, goals, and possible approaches.

   Again, call me or drop me an e-mail. Let’s get to know one another.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Seven Suggestions to Help Districts Avoid Special Education Hearings: A Short-Term Win May Be a Long-Term Loss

Dear Colleagues,

 [CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

Introduction

   Earlier this summer, I served as an Expert Witness for a High School student trying to get more extensive special education services for a very serious and rare medical condition. While we made the best case possible for the Administrative Law Judge, the student lost.

   While I legally understood the Judge’s ruling, the fact is that school districts historically have won the vast majority of special education lawsuits in this country—at both the Due Process and State or Federal Court levels.

   At the same time—having testified many times in State and Federal Court for both students and school districts—I would like to suggest that some Districts focus more on the short-term “Win,” not understanding that, inadvertently, they are also incurring a long-term “Loss.”

   More on this later.

   In the next few years, special education litigation is expected to skyrocket due to the direct and/or related services not provided to Students with Disabilities (SWDs) during the pandemic. In fact, the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) telegraphed this coming “storm cloud” when they published an official Guidance Letter to state and local education agencies on August 24, 2021—while our country was still in the midst of the pandemic.

   The Guidance reiterated OSEP’s “commitment to ensuring children with disabilities and their families have successful early intervention and educational experiences in the 2021-2022 school year.” The byline to the Press Release stated: “Regardless of the COVID-19 pandemic or the mode of instruction, children with disabilities are entitled to receive a free, appropriate, public education.”

   And, the Press Release quoted U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona: 

"Serving all children and students with disabilities in our public schools isn't just written into law—it’s a moral obligation and strong equitable practice. When we recognize and celebrate these differences as strengths, and when we help all children make progress toward challenging educational goals, everyone benefits."

_ _ _ _ _

   Critically, the pandemic has no “statute of limitations.”

   Thus, it is possible that the parents of a kindergarten student with disabilities—who was not appropriately educated during the pandemic—could file a lawsuit ten years later when that student is failing his/her sophomore year in high school.

   The primary claim? That the pandemic-year loss of services in 2021 created a multi-year “educational cascade of student failure and frustration” in 2031.

   NOTE that I am not saying that these parents will “win” the case.

   What I am saying—for anyone in a district or school who has had to prepare for and participate in a Due Process or Federal special education court case—is that the case still needs to be tried.

   And this will involve countless hours of staff documentation, preparation, and participation. . . not to mention the emotional toll during the entire process.

   Given this, I would like to provide my own “guidance” of what to do and not do when parents of SWDs express serious and ongoing concerns about their child’s IEP services. . . and litigation appears to be on the horizon.

   I do this as a school psychologist who has worked in schools for over 40 years, and as an experienced Expert Witness who has consulted with and/or testified in court for both parents and school districts many times

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Seven Suggestions to Help Districts When Special Education Litigation Looks Inevitable

Suggestion #1. Admit Mistakes/Don’t Focus on Being Right

   Too many times, district or school personnel have made legitimate and important (or, at least, questionable) errors when delivering IEP services. And yet, they fear that these errors will result in sanctions or penalties, and they take a hard line, denying the mistakes while hoping that they can create enough uncertainty to “scare” the parents (or guardians) from filing a formal complaint.

   Here, I suggest taking a page out of the “Corporate Handbook.”

   We have found time and again that—when big companies make major errors—the fall-out is moderated when the CEO sincerely and publicly admits the mistake and outlines a plan to address the breach and make amends.

   In most cases, when legitimate special education mistakes are litigated, the result is a ruling requiring compensatory services.

   Given this, why would a district not admit its mistake(s) to the parents, sincerely apologize, and offer the compensatory services that will likely be required anyways after a long, emotional, and relationship-damaging due process or court case?

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #2. Remember that Younger SWDs (and their Parents) may be in Your District for Another 10 Years

   Expanding on my “relationship-damaging” comment above, district and school personnel need to remember that—while a SWD’s administrators and teachers change over time, a student’s parents typically do not change and they often have long memories.

   Thus, when an emotional, relationship-breaking special education disagreement (with or without a due process or court hearing) occurs early in a SWD’s educational career, this may negatively affect the parents’ attitudes, beliefs, expectations, interpretations, and interactions with school district personnel for many years to come.

   While I am not suggesting that we placate parents who have SWDs, I am saying that (as above) districts may “win” the short-term battle over IEP services, but lose the long-term relationship war.

   And remember, that loss may impact every annual IEP review meeting, every three-year re-evaluation, and many well-meaning staff who don’t know the history, but experience the tension (or worse) nonetheless.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #3. Make Sure that All Communications and Discussions are Clear

   Educators—and, especially, special educators—live in a jargon-filled world. And even when we boil the jargon down to essential special education terms, parents still do not always fully understand these terms.

   For example, do parents of SWDs really understand what the “appropriate” in the phrase, “free and appropriate public education,” really means?

   No.

   Parents hear this phrase and think only about what they belief or know is “appropriate” for their child’s education. They do not understand the case law and the functional (and limited) meaning of this loaded term.

   District and school personnel need to do some soul-searching and analyze what they say when “communicating” with parents of SWDs. These professionals need to especially focus on determining what the parents actually understand versus what they think they communicated.

   The best approach here is to watch parents’ facial and physical reactions during meetings, to listen to their words and intonations, and to respectfully ask them what they thought they heard when there appears to be a disconnect.

   This will go a long way toward clear, consistent, accurate, and parent-centered communication.

   In contrast, the worst approach is to plow through the agenda, get the reports done, and hand the parents the state’s Special Education Procedural Safeguards Manual, checking that step off the meeting checklist while suggesting that they read it.

_ _ _ _ _ 

Suggestion #4. Know that Parents Know What They Know, Not What You Know

   Related to #3 above, districts and schools need to understand that, when unhappy with their child’s special education program, parents with SWDs consult three primary sources: (a) friends or other parents with SWDs; (b) Google; and (c) formal or informal advocates.

   Thus, they only “know what they know.”

   From an advocacy perspective, educators are responsible for educating parents about their child’s status and needs, their roles and responsibilities, and their rights and safeguards.

   Indeed, when educators have their own SWDs, they expect no less.

   For example, some parents come into IEP meetings with specific interventions or programs that their child “must have” in order to succeed.

   When this occurs, some (special) educators at the meeting—for a variety of professional and personal reasons—implicitly or explicitly disallow these suggestions, sometimes citing IDEA and case law saying that “parents are not allowed to dictate specific interventions on an IEP.”

   A more collaborative tact is to first “seek to understand” (a) what the parents’ educational goals are for their child, and (b) how they found and what they understand about the intervention they’ve suggested. This can then move to an educative tact where parents (if true) can be shown how the current (or school-recommended) interventions have the same goals, are more evidenced-based, and have a higher probability of success for their child.

   And, who knows? Maybe the parents have found an intervention that actually is better. . . not just for their child, but for many other SWDs in the school or district.

   The “take-away” here is that educators are too often afraid of educating and empowering parents, because they fear that their “good will” will be turned against them down the road.

   In the end, none of us is an expert on every topic in education. District and school personnel are encouraged to view their work with parents—even “challenging” parents—as a growth experience, especially as they try to understand where they are coming from and how they got “there.”

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #5. Parents often go through the “Stages of Grief”—They are Afraid, Anxious, Angry, or in Denial

   Building onto the suggestions above, district and school personnel need to consider how parents’ emotions—relative to their SWD—are impacting their interactions and behavior.

   For example, it’s scary to have a “child with exceptional needs” when you were expecting (and “everyone else” has) a perfect child. . . and your child is causing financial and other stress within the family unit, and you don’t know what the future will bring—tomorrow or even after your child graduates from high school.

   It’s frustrating when you thought “the school” was committed to your child’s best interests, they “irresponsibly” failed to implement important parts of the IEP, and now you are questioning yours “hands-off” approach and “blind” trust.

   Or, it tests your faith when, as in the Court case I was just involved in, your child has a rare medical condition, no one in the school is listening to you or your doctors, and teachers are questioning the validity of the condition, suggesting that your child is lazy, not sick.

   While parents typically have but one child with a disability, districts are often educating hundreds of SWDs. For this reason, it is easy for district and school personnel to lose the “personal, individual perspective” that parents expect for their child.

   And so, it is not a bad thing for these professionals to continually ask themselves:

   “What would I do if I were this parent and responsible for this child’s life, education, and well-being? And what would I expect of the educators responsible for my child for six hours each day and 180 days each year?”

   Perhaps, these two questions would engender the understanding (I originally wrote, “humanity”) that we all need to fully serve not just our SWDs, but their parents, siblings, and extended families as well.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #6. Keep it Professional, Not Personal

   I fully understand that, at times, frustrated parents “cross the line” and “make it personal.” It’s not appropriate, but it happens.

   I remember a Building Principal who would approach this situation by “killing the parents with love.”

   In essence, this Principal was comfortable “in her own skin,” and she was confident both with her professional motivation and expertise, as well as with how much she cared about her students (and staff).

   She also knew that confronting “fire with fire” would not work, and that she needed to interact with challenging parents with understanding, empathy, and love.

   And even if her love did not change the parents right now, it could be the foundation for change in the future.

   And even if the parents never changed, she—at least—could go home each night knowing that she did everything in her power to work with them professionally and in good faith.

_ _ _ _ _

Suggestion #7. Don’t Mediate if You Don’t Intend to Moderate

   My last recommendation is more procedural than personal. . . except that it often becomes more intensely personal for parents when school districts do it.

   When there are serious special education disagreements, it often is strongly suggested that districts engage in formal dispute mediation with the parents of the SWD involved.

   My recommendation is that districts should not do this if they know ahead of time that they will not change their position(s) during the mediation session.

   Said a different way: Don’t go through the “charade” (never mind the time and expense) of a mediation that has no hope of resolution. The likely result is that you (a) further infuriate the parents; (b) redouble their efforts to “beat you” at the next level (i.e., litigation); and (c) demonstrate—at least to the parents—that you do not have their child’s best interests at heart.

   Districts do not get “brownie points” from Hearing Officers because they were open to negotiation, and “tried” mediation.

   Hearing Officers do not care. They are focused on the facts, the law, and the decisions they have to make when a case comes to their docket.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   This Blog has discussed seven suggestions not just to help districts avoid special education litigation, but—really—to help them (a) to truly educate all students with disabilities; and (b) to collaborate with their parents or guardians with empathy, understanding, sensitivity, and professionalism—even when things get tense or confrontative.

   While legally, school districts have a much higher probability of success during special education litigation, and they may “win” most of their cases, the erosion of their good working relationships with parents of SWDs may result, in the long-term, in a “district-net-loss.”

   Indeed—and especially in today’s political environment where parents are being encouraged to confront districts’ educational policies, procedures, and practices—parents of SWDs talk with other parents of SWDs.

   This creates the potential that one parent’s grievance triggers many parents’ shared grievances.

   I am not trying to predict a disaster here. I am trying to write a “cautionary tale.”

   And the suggested “morals” of this tale involved:

·       Suggestion #1. Admit Mistakes/Don’t Focus on Being Right

·       Suggestion #2. Remember that Younger SWD (and their Parents) May Be in Your District for Another 10 Years

·       Suggestion #3. Make Sure that All Communications and Discussions are Clear

·       Suggestion #4. Know that Parents Know What They Know, Not What You Know

·       Suggestion #5. Parents often go through the “Stages of Grief”—They are Afraid, Anxious, Angry, or in Denial 

·       Suggestion #6. Keep it Professional, Not Personal

·       Suggestion #7. Don’t Mediate if You Don’t Intend to Moderate

   In the end, while a short-term, litigation win by a district may result in a long-term parent-relationship loss. . . a short-term special education resolution often creates the foundation for the long-term success of the involved students, staff, and parents.

_ _ _ _ _

   Thanks for reading this important Blog.

   As always, know that I am always available for a free one-hour consultation conference call to help you and your colleagues apply the information and perspectives above into practical, day-to-day action.

   Even if you disagree with some of the suggestions above, I often find that a more personal Zoom discussion identifies both areas of consensus and opportunities for professional and personal growth.

   Please feel free to reach out if you want to “give it a go.”

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]

The Pandemic Unearths the Raw Reality of Educational Inequity and Disparity:

COVID-19 Forces Us to Realize We Need to Change the Village

Introduction

[CLICK HERE for All of the Critical Points in the Entire Blog Article]

   With the pandemic still dominating our world in innumerable ways, most of us are still sequestered, many states have shuttered their schools for the year, and home-schooling/distance learning has become a (virtual) reality for many students, teachers, and parents/guardians.

   And these are all major issues that, right now, do not yet have an “expiration date.”

   Critically, with these issues have come the waves of emotions (for example, anxiety, fear, frustration, loss, and grief) that have similarly impacted us personally—along with our children, adolescents, students, and significant others.

   And yet, simultaneously, we have learned that it truly "takes a village”—in ways that we could not have previously imagined.

   Indeed, this pandemic has reinforced the following realities:

•  Our world is even smaller than we ever could have believed.

Otherwise, how could COVID-19 have been transmitted worldwide in so short a time?

_ _ _ _ _

• The health of our family, neighbors, community, town, state, country, continent, and world depends on all of us.

It depends on—to name a few—all of us staying at home and practicing physical distancing; our grocery stores, truckers, and supply chains; our medical personnel and first responders; our epidemiologists, vaccine researchers, and business partners; and our formal and informal leaders—many of whom have led with clarity, courage, consistency, and the common good in mind.

_ _ _ _ _

• Even though we are taking out a mortgage (literally) on our futures, the pandemic has reinforced the federal reality that when there is a need for money, funding, and economic relief. . . somehow, the money is there.

This should be a “post-COVID-19 mental note” when our country recalibrates our economy and funding priorities—and when the education community will decide how to use its share.

Remember that, 2009’s $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave billions of dollars to schools. . . and yet, that money did not close (or permanently close) the disparities in our schools a decade later.

_ _ _ _ _

• And so, we have learned that the inequities of the past are the inequities of the present.

   Relative to this latter reality, the Question is:

   Will we seize this opportunity, now and in the months to come, to truly address in built-in, systemic inequities and disparities in our country, states, communities, and educational systems?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

COVID-19 and Social Inequity in the US

   While COVID-19 has impacted millions across the globe, even in the midst of this continuing crisis, it is clear that COVID-19 is not a “fair and equitable disease.”

   Clearly, we all know that this virus has killed more elderly patients, as well as those with chronic medical conditions including heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, cancer, and hypertension.

   But we also know that COVID-19 has magnified many of the societal inequities and disparities that existed before the first patient was ever hospitalized.

   For example, as chronicled by the Anti-Defamation League:

•  People with lower incomes and fewer financial resources are impacted disproportionately, as they struggle to navigate the health care system, school closings, reduction in employment and shelter-in-place restrictions. With working from home the “new normal” and shutdowns of cities and states across the country, many workers have lost or will soon lose their jobs.

• Many members of marginalized groups have already experienced disproportionate harm. People who are homeless or incarcerated are particularly vulnerable because of crowded and unsanitary conditions, inability to engage in social distancing and more.

• Immigrants and those who are undocumented face vulnerabilities with the health care system (i.e., fear or seeking help and lack of coverage). Many recent immigrants work in jobs without sick leave and are unable to self-quarantine, making them much more susceptible to the virus than the general population.
• Victims of domestic abuse have been further marginalized and at risk because there is more time at home, stress and financial strain.  
• We are seeing bias and hate that targets the Asian American community through scapegoating and stereotyping. In addition, bullying, harassment and slurs have become commonplace. And, there is a reported increase in hate crimes against Asian American people.

• While a majority of our K-12 schools and colleges close their buildings and move to online learning, disparities such as food insecurity, insufficient digital access, and lack of critical social services persist and are magnified.

    But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, on April 8th, may have put it best.

   Noting that Black New Yorkers comprise 28% of the COVID-19 deaths in New York City and 18% of deaths in New York state—despite being 22% and 9% of the population, respectively. . . and that Hispanics represent 34% and 14% of the COVID-19 City and State deaths—despite being 29% of the City’s and 11% of the State’s population, respectively, he stated:

Why are more African Americans and Latinos affected? We’re seeing this around the country.

Comorbidity, I understand that, but I think there’s something more to it. You know, it always seems that the poorest people pay the highest price. Why is that? Whatever the situation is.

(Immediately after Katrina), The people standing on those rooftops were not rich white people.

Let’s figure it out. Let’s do the work. Let’s do the research. Let’s learn from these moments and let’s learn these lessons and let’s do it now.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

COVID-19 and Educational Inequity and Disparity in the US

   Relative to the social and economic inequities and disparities that “trickle down” to our schools and districts, most administrators more fully understand the student-specific academic and health, mental health, and wellness effects of this pandemic—particularly among students living in poverty, English-language learners, students with disabilities, and students who are homeless.

   Moreover, these educators know that many of these groups overlap— exponentially magnifying the impact of the pandemic.

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Article that Cites Recent Publications and Describes Additional Educational Disparities due to the Pandemic]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A Call to Action:  What Will the Future Bring?

   While none of us can predict the future, recent reports are already suggesting that educational funding will be negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic—especially given an expected recession. These reports then predict that this will result in decreases in student achievement and increases in the already-existing gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

   None of these predictions are positive for students from poverty, students of color, English-language and/or Native American learners, students with disabilities, and similar others.

   And so, the Question is:  How do we prevent or change this future?

[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog Article that Cites Recent Publications and Describes the Predicted Financial and Academic Educational Disparities due to the Pandemic]

_ _ _ _ _

   These predictions—of pandemic-related student funding and achievement gaps added onto the pre-existing gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students— spell an inequity and disparity “death knoll” for another generation of disadvantaged students.

   Given that the pandemic will force us to reform, reorganize, and regenerate how we educate all students, is this not the time to reconceptualize from the “bottom-up”?

   That is: Why shouldn’t we first (re)design the most equitable and effective educational systems for our students from poverty, students of color, English-language and/or Native American learners, students with disabilities, and similar others. . . knowing that these “core” systems will work for our advantaged students as well?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

   An EdSurge article last week (April 7, 2020) reported on the results of an end-of-March survey that over 5,000 U.S. teachers responded to. When asked to describe the three most frequent emotions that they felt each day during this pandemic, the following were most-often mentioned:

•  Anxious 
• Fearful
• Worried 
• Overwhelmed

   The reasons for these feelings, according to these teachers, involve (a) their general fears that they or someone in their family will contract COVID-19; (b) their stress around managing their own and their families’ needs; and (c) their anxiety around teaching full-time from home while simultaneously mastering new distance learning technologies.

   As I talk with administrators across the country, I hear these same emotions, but some of their reasons for these feelings include concerns about:

• The impact of the inequities and disparities between their advantaged and disadvantaged students. . . that we have discussed throughout this Blog;

• The limitations of the current fiscal situation, and the financial status of their districts and schools in the year to come; and

• Federal and state policies that prevent them from flexibly addressing their student and staff needs—once again, with an eye toward their most needy students.

_ _ _ _ _

    Earlier in this Blog, I quoted New York Governor Andrew Cuomo who said:

Why are more African Americans and Latinos affected? We’re seeing this around the country.

Let’s figure it out. Let’s do the work. Let’s do the research. Let’s learn from these moments and let’s learn these lessons and let’s do it now.

   Not one week earlier, Governor Cuomo also said:

And we're going to get through it because we are New York, and because we've dealt with a lot of things, and because we are smart. You have to be smart to make it in New York.

And we are resourceful, and we are showing how resourceful we are.

And because we are united, and when you are united, there is nothing you can't do.

And because we are New York tough. We are tough. You have to be tough. This place makes you tough. But it makes you tough in a good way.

We're going to make it because I love New York, and I love New York because New York loves you. New York loves all of you. Black and white and brown and Asian and short and tall and gay and straight. New York loves everyone.

That's why I love New York. It always has, it always will. And at the end of the day, my friends, even if it is a long day, and this is a long day, love wins. Always. And it will win again through this virus.

   If you will, I would like you to read the quote above and substitute the word “America” for “New York.”

_ _ _ _ _

   My friends, we will get through this crisis. . . what I called a “Disruptive Opportunity” in my last Blog message. We will get through with courage, cooperation, goodwill, fortitude, contribution, and honor.

   But as we overcome this pandemic, let’s remember its inequitable impact. And let’s look each other in the eyes and commit to “figuring it out,” and “learning the lessons.”

   We need to minimize the academic and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health impact of this pandemic on all of our children and adolescents. 

   But we especially need to take action on behalf of our students from poverty, students of color, English-language and/or Native American learners, students with disabilities, and similar others.

   We need to take action now—to minimize the impacts of this pandemic. But we also need to take action in the coming months as we prepare for the next school year.

   If we are truly living in a “new normal,” let’s create a “new educational normal” in the coming months. . . a “new normal” where the current inequities and disparities in our educational systems disappear, and where the students who have been harmed by these inequities and disparities in the past are “made whole” for their futures.

   Their futures. . . and the futures of their children.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE for All of the Critical Points in the Entire Blog Article]