SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: untrained, unqualified bullshitter?

The position of Secretary of Education is frequently filled with the secular equivalent of flim-flam artist televangelists. These individuals lack the training, experience, common sense or moral virtue to do the job. They do, however, possess a crucial skill. They are accomplished bullshitters. Tub thumping humbugs of the first magnitude.  

The Reagan administration provides a sterling example. Ronald Reagan promised he would eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, but dropped that when education unexpectedly gained national attention. He still slashed education spending in half. But Reagan staffers knew his administration had to look like they supported public education. They were in luck. Reagan had already appointed a know-nothing blowhard as Secretary of Education. William F. Bennett was a carnival barker in both style and substance. This gas-bag's unrestrained exaggerations and gross simplifications repeatedly made the news. And as they did, gullible Americans came to believe that: A. much was wrong with America's schools and B. the Reagan administration was working hard to fix them.

This is not the place to detail Bennett's demagoguery.  Let's just recount an incident that captures the noxious essence of his humbug. Reagan's Secretary of Education wrote an article that appeared in the November 1988 Readers Digest. In it he praised a school principal's extraordinarily simple method of "reforming a troubled inner-city Washington, D. C. school." "On the very first day," wrote Bennett, this remarkable "educational leader," this "no-nonsense principal, assembled the student body and ... with practiced eye, chose 20 potential troublemakers" to enforce order and put an end to chaos." And, according to Bennett, putting the school's most likely miscreants in charge of the rest of the student body worked magic! Order was restored and education proceeded!

Can you imagine? The school is chaoticl and the principal's solution is to put the potential trouble-makers in charge! Even a Secretary of Education should recognize such a policy is just plain nuts. Of course Bennett was not interested in the multifaceted and highly complex nature of actual reform. He was shoveling bullshit for political purposes.  Simple solutions for the simple minded. This is  how he politicized his position with carnival-barker effectiveness. For example, he repeatedly beat up on the National Education Association  — a relatively innocuous organization at the time. Charging that it was a major cause of what he alleged to be national school decline, he repeatedly pointed to it as the chief villain.  But why did Bennett really attack the NEA? It was a union that favored the Democrats and, rather ineffectually, opposed the Reagan administration's education policies.  Never mind facts! Bennett's job was to confirm the biases of Reagan voters and he did that well. What he failed to do was offer genuine leadership.

Enough about Bennett. Let's turn to Arnie Duncan, President Obama's Secretary of Education. Unlike Reagan, Obama increased Federal education funding by an extra $100 billion. But his selection of Mr. Duncan was similar to Reagan's choice of Bennett in that Arnie's chief skill was bullshitting. He actually lacked any knowledge of education policy, curriculum design, research on learning, human growth and development etc.. He had never even taught. Yet despite his utter lack of qualifications,, he had served as CEO of the Chicago public school system from 2001 - 2008. How come? Can you spell P O L I T I C S? 

Yes, Arnie was utterly unqualified to be secretary of anything. But he did have that one qualification as Secretary of Education. He really could dish out the shit. He was skilled at looking like he knew what he was talking about.  (He also provided the President with an excellent basketball buddy. An ex-professional hoopster, Arnie played a mean game of one on one.)  

During the Bush administration "No Child Left Behind" had been signed into law. It stipulated that in the future only "highly qualified" teachers would be permitted to teach." In fact it specifically ordained that "to teach math, science, social studies, the arts, reading or languages, candidates must have obtained a long-term teaching certificate, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge by either obtaining a college major in the subject, by passing a test in the subject taught." 

That's got real teeth, right?  Ah, but wait! The lawmakers also inserted the following at the very end: "...or by some other means established by the state." This was nothing less than a last second castration! It allowed states to dodge all of the supposed rigor. States could substitute whatever feeble faldarall suited their situation. And, of course, that's exactly what happened in state after state. Were legislators surprised that this happened? Hardly! They wanted to look tough, while simultaneously allowing the same laxity that has characterized teacher education since its inception. Tougher entry standards means paying more to entering teachers. Otherwise no one will want to meet these stringent standards. But that means you have to pay more to attract the best. And raising taxes to pay teachers more is politically unpalatable

California initially failed to take advantage of the No Child Left Behind escape clause. Consequently, the state faced an immediate shortage of highly qualified teachers. But President Obama came to the rescue. He waived his executive order wand and declared that wanna-be teachers still in training were, in fact, "highly qualified?" At that time many such people were filling in as full-time teachers in California. Now, thanks to Obama, these rank amateurs were instantly transformed into masters of the art. California's shortage of "highly qualified" teachers was over. 

Did Secretary Duncan complain when Obama transformed apprentices to master craftsmen with the stroke of a pen! Not a whimper came from Arnie. Apparently he had changed his mind. 

Eventually a federal judge ruled that Obama's evasion violated the No Child Left Behind "highly qualified" requirement, Congress corrected that. They piously legislated that the classification "highly qualified" included those who weren't. Arnie went along with that too. By then his expressed concern about inadequate teacher preparation had evaporated.

Last, there is Betsy DeVoss, Secretary of Education under Donald Trump. How much training in education did she have? Zero. How much teaching experience? Zero. How much personal experience in public school where 90% of American send their children? Zero. How much has she and the rest of her family donated to Republican causes? Forbes reports about $200 million dollars in 2017.  

That's 200 million reasons why, having always attended private conservative Christian schools, having long demanded deep cuts in federal education spending, having enthusiastically championed privatizing public schools through vouchers, and after boldly boosting the for-profit college industry despite their student loan default rate being 6 times higher, she still ended up U.S. Secretary of Education. 

Was Ms. DeVoss a bullshitter similar to the two cited above? To be fair, that's not clear. Perhaps she was just a true believer trained in the fundamentalist tradition that renders one incapable of reasoning. A sort of free market fanatic who falsely linked materialistic capitalism with the decidedly anti-materialist teaching of Jesus Christ. In any case, she was clearly in over her head as Secretary of Education. In fact, to even get the job Vice President Pence had to cast the deciding vote, given the 50-50 tie in the Senate vote on DeWees.

There are competent, qualified people who have served, and now serve, as secretaries of education at the state and national level. But there are too many counter-examples. Should our political "leaders" want to get serious, not just solemn, about improving America's schooling it is way past time for them to appoint highly qualified experts. In the meantime, though there still will be lots of openings for untrained, unqualified, conscience-free bull shitters.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Why It's Unfair

 

fairness — NOUN — impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination: 
Oxford Dictionary

The Supreme Court has ruled, 6-3, that it is unconstitutional for colleges to use race as a factor in admissions. Many worry that this will reduce the number of Black students and harm efforts to promote diversity via affirmative action. But other people are concerned about who is being discriminated against .

Affirmative action is intended to foster diversity and improve opportunities for select minority groups and women. And assisting African-Americans is a primary intent because that community's disadvantages originated in the highly methodical evils of slavery and Jim Crow. Social injustices such as predatory lending, red-lining, pay discrimination and segregated schools are deeply rooted in this history and have done a great deal of damage. 

The intent of affirmative action is greater fairness. But life is unfair to many others whose identity is not revealed by skin color. Lots of people, not descended from slavery, a member of a selected minority, nor female, end up on the dirty end of life's stick. For them, affirmative action offers no remedy whatsoever. Indeed, in the zero sum game of life, the opportunities of those deemed unqualified for affirmative action are instead given to those who do qualify — superficially. In the real world, so many Americans are afflicted with such a wide variety of undeserved impediments that it is impossible to even identify them, much less redress their disadvantages. This is the fundamental flaw in affirmative action.

Affirmative action programs treat this vast population of unrecognized disadvantaged as if they don't exist. It rules them out at a stroke by mistakenly treating victimization as if it is a matter of a single criteria. For example, it presently doesn't matter if your loving Dad is a successful stockbroker and your caring mother a skilled heart surgeon. If you are African-American, a member of some other selected minority or female, you still qualify for affirmative action. But if you are white and your dad is a matter of conjecture and your mother a neglectful crack addict, you get no consideration whatsoever. That doesn't make sense. Inequality should not be dealt with in this single criteria selection way. To even approximate fairness, affirmative action must be awarded proportionate to the actual disadvantages suffered by each individual. And since this presents insurmountable difficulties, the very possibility of  fair affirmative action goes out the window.

Slavery and Jim Crow? 

A counter argument is that some handicaps are so damaging they demand special redress for the group involved. And many think the damages inflicted by America's slavery and Jim Crow racism, for instance, fit that description. We should never minimize the negative impact of literally having ancestors who were owned by another. Nor should we pooh pooh the systematic exploitation that followed. Still, it's been 6 generations since slavery and nearly 3 since Jim Crow was flushed down the toilet of history. Plus, and this is vitally important, many non African-Americans who came here seeking a better life endured slave-like situations when they got here. What's being done for their descendants?

"Slave-like situations?" Yes, slave-like situations. Let's look at a couple of examples. During 19th and at least half of the 20th Century, most coal miners were in slave-like situations. They performed the absolutely vital task of fueling the nation. But they endured truly awful, sometimes deadly, working and living conditions. They typically worked 10 hour days, six days a week in foul air under feeble light, hundreds of feet below ground. 

Many were badly injured, crushed to death, or incinerated by gas explosions. Moreover, all of them breathed clouds of coal dust that slowly clogged their lungs and left many of them fighting for breath. Indeed, "black lung" suffocated thousands. Many began working in this hellish environment as young as 9 or 10. (See photo below.) This is when slave children were also put to work. Plus they had to buy at inflated prices in the company store, and also rent their shabby homes from the company. Typically, at the end of the main street, there was a huge smoldering pile of mine waste, its sulfurous smoke fouling the air and turning all the structures in town a ghastly shade of yellow. If dad was killed in the mine, the company evicted his wife and kids. And, around 1900, coal miners endured all of this for what today amounts to about $4.50 an hour. 

if this unrelenting exploitation drove some miner to try to unionize and demand to be treated like a human being, the company fired him and evicted his family. If the collective had the courage to actually organize and go on strike, they were beaten, even shot down, courtesy of the state police, national guard, or even federal troops. What did the law do about coal company killings? Nothing. The law belonged to the coal kings and their allies, the steel and railroad barons. They "owned" coal country local and state governments as well as a host of judges. (For an epoch example of this check out The Battle of Blair Mountain.) No, these coal miners weren't slaves. But they lived and died in similar misery. In fact some slaves lived better if they enjoyed relatively privileged positions.

 I know people who grew up in these coal towns. In fact my next door neighbor did. And as she grew up she watched black lung smother her father. Her life was forever altered by her coal town experiences; and it wasn't for the better. Yet she is entitled to no affirmative action whatsoever. Be assured she would be if policy makers were even mildly interested in fairness.

How about the Irish immigrants who did the dangerous, underpaid, back-breaking work of building America's railroads, canals and tunnels — largely by hand? America's transportation infrastructure was chiefly built by their back-breaking labor. And they typically lived in wretched temporary work camps, labored 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, died by the dozens from work-place accidents and contagious diseases; and were paid next to nothing for their trouble. Should they die of infectious diseases or be killed on the job, they were often buried in unmarked mass graves that are still being discovered to this day. 

To top it off, they and their families endured vicious attacks for being both Irish and Roman Catholic. The Thomas Nast cartoon, below, captures some of that nastiness.

Like the miners, these immigrant laborers were no one's property. But in terms of disrespect, exploitation and wretched living conditions, they might as well have been. Why, then, is there no discussion of affirmative action for their progeny? Does their ancestor's suffering, which often rubbed off on subsequent generations, merit no consideration whatsoever? No it doesn't.

Other groups suffered, some continue to suffer, similarly appalling mistreatment. Jews, for instance. They came here to escape merciless persecution and outright murder in Czarist Russia. But when they got to this promised land they encountered still more persecution. Anti-semitism haunted them. Until the 1960's, for instance, there were signs in some luxury Palm Beach Hotels that read, "NO JEWS, NO DOGS,"  And Jews ranked with Blacks as key targets of the KKK. Jews are not included in affirmative action. How come? 

Then there are Asian-Americans. Throughout American history people from Asia have been excluded, discriminated against, endured violence and were even prevented from becoming American citizens. Laws were also passed to keep them from voting or owning land. Now, instead of receiving favor under affirmative action, they're often discriminated against in college admissions because they would be disproportionately successful if they wreceived equal treatment. Should we call this "disaffirmative action?" 

The list of America's blameless victims is long. The eligible for affirmative action list is much, much shorter. That's patently unfair.

Other, Less Obvious Victims

Many other Americans also have gotten (Some continue to get.) the dirty end of life's stick through no fault of their own, But they escape nearly everyone's attention. Here are a few examples of a long, long list of folks afflicted by unmerited handicaps that are utterly ignored when it comes to affirmative action:  

    Appearance

Aristotle observed, "Personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction." Research proves him right. For instance, in a study entitled "What Is Beautiful Is Good," researchers from the American Psychological Association documented a phenomenon they referred to as the "physical-attractiveness stereotype." Investigators showed photographs of attractive, average, and unattractive people to university undergraduates. The students were asked to rate the people in the photos on various personality traits and behavioral tendencies, based solely on their appearance in the pictures. 

Compared to unattractive people, attractive people were assumed to possess a higher number of positive traits. The students consistently rated them as confident, strong, assertive, candid, warm, honest, kind, outgoing, sensitive, poised, sociable, exciting, and nurturing (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972). And the physical-attractiveness stereotype is robust. Research has repeatedly proven its existence in different experimental settings. (Feingold 1992). 

Should we have affirmative action programs for the unattractive? After all, they may well suffer more unfair treatment than, say, a physically attractive African-American. 

    Obesity 

Overweight is a characteristic that attracts discrimination and unfair treatment. Research shows overweight people are often perceived as lazy, unintelligent, slovenly, and unattractive (Grover, Keel, and Mitchell 2003). Several studies demonstrate that such negative attitudes toward obese individuals contribute to discrimination in the work place. Specifically, obese people are not hired as often as people of normal weight (Roe and Eickwort 1976); are less likely to be promoted (Larkin and Pines 1979); and often report being discriminated against by managers and peers (Rothblum, Brand, Miller, and Oetjen 1990). 

Should we have affirmative action programs for the obese? Wait, you say, a person is fat because they eat too much. Unlike skin color, it's something they can and should control. But is it? Not for everybody. Research demonstrates there is a genetic component in many cases of obesity. Nevertheless they are discriminated against on the basis of this often acquired, rather than achieved, characteristic. Obesity and Genetics, Office of Public Health Genomics, CDC  Now, ask yourself, just how is being born with a propensity for obesity different from being born African-American? 

    Short Stature 

Height, particularly in men, is another physical attribute associated with negative stereotypes and discrimination. A 1992 study by researchers from Michigan State University demonstrated that short men are often judged inferior to tall men in several personal attributes. People tend to judge taller men as more socially attractive, higher in professional status, more masculine, more athletically inclined, and more physically attractive than short men (Jackson and Ervin 1992). Similar studies have found that short men often experience discrimination in professional settings. For example, short job applicants are not hired as often as taller applicants (Bonuso 1983); short employees earn less, on average, than taller employees (Loh 1993); and short political candidates lose elections more often than taller candidates (Gillis 1982). 

How about affirmative action programs for shorties? Ridiculous, you say? Maybe not. Might a 5'4" white male actually be more disadvantaged than a 6'4" black male, all other things being equal? And it's even more likely that a short, unattractive, obese white male might well be considerably more disadvantaged than a tall, handsome, slim, black man. How should affirmative action handle that?

    Personal Life Situations

Whom do you think is more disadvantaged, an African-American raised by loving parents in an intact family or a European-American with an absent father, a drug addicted mother and little love for the child? How about a female "person of color" who lives in a Palm Springs mansion, whose caring dad is a bank president, and whose loving mother owns her own accounting firm vs. a male white kid in Nowhere, West Virginia whose invalided coal miner dad is slowly being suffocated by black lung and whose mother is profoundly depressed? ,

The point here is that there is a lot more to one's life situation than skin color. And these factors can be absolutely crucial for determining who is disadvantaged and should get a compensatory break. Clearly we should have affirmative action for people who have had damaging life experiences growing up, such as having an abusive parents. Why? Because it surely makes them unequal. But how can the obviously severe handicap of a dysfunctional family be accurately measured? This sort of thing is often hidden deep among all the other family secrets. Affirmative action completely ignores such often devastating handicaps. And to the extent that it does so it is profoundly unfair.

    Other Factors Plus Reverse Discrimination

How about being poor. Isn't that an unfair disadvantage?  Whether you are white, brown or black, the color that matters most in America is green. The "long green." Consider the issue of obtaining equal justice under the law? In court we get the justice we can afford. Rely on a court appointed attorney and you are far more likely to serve time even if you didn't do the crime. Contrariwise, if you did the crime but can pay for a dream team of clever barristers, there's a good chance you will get off. (Remember the O.J. Simpson trial?) But does affirmative action right all the wrongs spawned by poverty? It doesn't even try; and that too is profoundly unfair.

There also are other less dramatic factors to consider. Research indicates, for example, that people with red hair, especially men, are stereotyped as "clownish" and "weird" (Heckert and Best 1997). Negative stereotyping that is based on language and dialect (i.e., Southern accents, etc.) also is a common occurrence (Anisfield 1972). Even children who wear brand-name clothing and shoes are judged "popular," "wealthy," and able to "fit in with their peers," compared to children whose parents can't afford name brands (Elliot and Leonard 2004). 

Advocates of affirmative action have an ethical obligation to also apply compensatory measures to any persons who are handicapped by things they didn't cause and can't control. Yet only a very small proportion of life's victims presently qualify for fair share treatment. Why? Largely because the neglected disadvantaged lack the political muscle to successfully file a claim. They're too disadvantaged to even be considered for special treatment.

Worse still, the victims of reverse discrimination typically pay the most immediate costs of providing others with special benefits. Then, to make matters worse, many of these victims also must endure workplace "sermons" on hidden bias by pious affirmative action "evangelists" who are well paid to chide them, like errant children, for their prejudices. Their resultant anger and resentment set them up for exploitation by glib, grifting demagogues like Donald Trump. 

Remember, benefits usually are limited in number. So when you give someone a special advantage, you place others at a special disadvantage. In the U.K., affirmative action is tellingly called "positive discrimination." That helps clarify the fact that if you positively discriminate in favor of persons A, you must negatively discriminate against persons B and C if the contested resource is finite. How does that serve fairness?

Stigmatization

Stigmatization is another negative outgrowth of affirmative action. The experience of present-day Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is illlustrative. PBS's "Frontline" reports that Thomas owes his rise from Pin Point, Georgia to the Supreme Court to affirmative action. It got him into Yale Law School. But because of affirmative action, his presence there was questioned by fellow students. Many thought he was incapable of achieving entry on his own. They perceived him as a token presence who had not fairly won the right to attend. Years later that memory still gnaws at Thomas.

When Thomas graduated from Yale Law he failed to receive the accustomed job offers from prestigious law firms, PBS reports that he also regards this as a consequence of affirmative action. He thinks  it caused prospective employers to shy away from hiring him and discount his considerable capabilities and accomplishments. (One imagines that's a key reason why he expresses opposition to affirmative action in his court decisions.)

So far as affirmative action is concerned, stigmatization goes with the territory .

Agency

 Affirmative action also subtly undermines any sense of personal agency. With the eager help of politically correct professors, some minority college students, have mastered all of the grievance rhetoric. They can rattle off the current palaver about "the tyranny of "white cisgendered males," for instance. With others to blame for everything they may fail to read their assignments, or even learn how to paragraph. They don't see themselves as responsible in any degree for their own life situation. They see no connection between lack of effort and failure. It's all the fault of "the system." So their job is to sit around griping and bellyaching until "the system" is fixed. Good luck with that!

The Importance Principle

One last, but very important, thing. The more important something seems to be, the less appealing affirmative action is. We shy away from applying affirmative action to anything that really matters to us. 

Professional sports provide a trivial, but telling, example. Just 25% of NFL players are European-American, 58% are African-American. The NBA's situation is even more dramatic. Here a remarkable 73.2% of the players are African-American.  Yet Blacks make up just 12% of the U.S. population. These imbalances seem to demand affirmative action. But there is no discussion of applying it. Why not? Because adopting  affirmative action requires selecting players who are less talented. And that's where we call a halt. Racial equity be damned. We want our team to win; and actuating  affirmative action virtually insures that they won't.

The importance principle applies to other jobs as well. Jobs where results are at a premium. Suppose, for instance, you're an airline passenger flying through heavy turbulence when your pilot announces: "This is your Captain speaking. I want to give a big shout out to Eagle Airlines affirmative action program for getting me in this pilot's seat." Would you be glad to hear that? Similarly, shall we select our heart surgeons via affirmative action? How about structural engineers who design the structures we depend on? I don't think so!

But affirmative action is readily applied when selecting folks for less 'important' jobs. Jobs  like teaching, for instance. Here, competence should trump everything else just as it does in the NFL or NBA. But it doesn't.

Conclusion

Affirmative action is both unfair and unwise. Unfair because it awards favor illogically and incompletely. Unwise because it undermines personal agency and promotes stigmatization. But once you start affirmative action, it's awfully hard to call it off  — even when you should.

What, then, is to be done? End affirmative action and boldly embrace the prescription that Martin Luther King, Jr. presented on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.  Focus exclusively on the content of individual character and the achievements that are manifestations of that character. Nothing more, nothing less. Some claim that advocating a racially blind prescription is, in itself, racist. That's a doublethink distortion if there ever was one.

--GKC

PREPARING STUDENTS TO MEET ACTUAL WORKPLACE EXPECTATIONS

School "leaders" make a show of concern about students being prepared to "meet the expectations of the workplace." Truth is, most aren't. But not for the reasons "leadership" typically fusses about.

 

In reality things like a graduate's math skills, or reading level, are of marginal concern. What really matters is getting students ready to meet the REAL expectations of the workplace. That means educators must make sure the kids are prepared for things like this:

1. Working for ever-smaller portions of the profits while corporate chieftains make ever-more  preposterous amounts of money. (Elon Musk just 'ate' $48 BILLION in one bite.)

2. Being discarded like 4-day-old leftovers when it serves 'corporate' interests.

3. Seeing the corporation's future compromised by senior staff focusing only on quarterly reports.

4. Having their jobs shipped overseas whenever it benefits the corporate bottom line.

5. Watching their health benefits shrink.

6. Discovering their pension funds have evaporated.

7. Being unable to take the time to pee.

8. Being over-supervised, but utterly uncared about.

9. Lacking the resources to do their job, while senior staff get far more than they need.

10. Never being asked, but always being told, how to better do their job.

Preparing students for the likes of the above will, in fact, be far better preparation to "meet the expectations of the work place." Not every workplace. But far, far too many.

RAISING TEENS: finding that elusive balance

 

Raising a teen is a challenging proposition. And a prime reason is the parental tendency to overestimate how much of their control remains. Parents tend to base their judgements about that on past experience.  A past in which they had a high degree of control. But that control slips away in ways which are not always obvious. And even when they are noticed, parent's tend to underestimate the degree of loss. That can have disastrous results. Here's a tale illustrating this point.

My wife and I watched neighboring parents try to deal with their daughter's adolescence. Both rather rigid, church going conservatives, they foolishly tried to maintain the same control or her that they had when she was younger. But as they did so the girl persisted in doing things they disapproved of. They then tried even harder to enforce the rules. But, impelled by social pressure and hormonal secretions,  the girl rebelled even more. When they urged her to study more, she studied less. When they forbid her to drink she got hammered — and smoked marijuana in the bargain. When they forbade her to ever see a boy friend again. she clandestinely did so anyway. When she repeatedly phoned the same forbidden boyfriend, they confiscated her cell phone. She secretly secured another.  That the young man was African-American, she white, intensified the rebellion.

The struggle climaxed when the girl became pregnant to the very boy her parents had forbidden. Worse, the boy turned out to be abusive, punching her in the stomach upon learning she was pregnant. The girl didn't tell her parents. But she did brake off the relationship, set the cops on her abuser and secretly secure an abortion. (Something her parents also would have forbidden — had they known.)   

This control struggle produced bitterness and estrangement between parents and child. The costs of their over-zealous parenting far exceeded the benefits. Yet the parents remained relatively oblivious of the fact that modern teens have a great deal of control over their own lives. They simply couldn't grasp that the degree of control they sought was inappropriate, counter productive and well-nigh impossible to enforce. Instead they blamed modernity.

Teens from functional homes with realistic teen limits usually avoid doing things that might seriously embarrass or disappoint their parents. But this is something the adolescent, not the parent, must choose to do. Remember too, parental advice can be as unrealistic as Arab advice to rainforest dwellers about surviving sandstorms. Remember too, teens often ignore even the best parental advice. As a German proverb reminds: "Everyone knows good counsel except those that have need of it." 

Parents must keep in mind too that teen brains are incompletely developed. Cognitive development is still ongoing.  This mental immaturity, especially when accompanied by new hormonal surges, can result in risky behavior. That quite properly worries parents. But trying too hard to eliminate teen risk-taking is risky too. The trick is learning when, and how much, to loosen control. Finding that elusive balance. That's the trick. And that is much, much more difficult than properly folding a fitted sheet.