2026 Can Be A Portal

In which Dan wonders if 2026 could be the year we really take students' interests in the wider world seriously. We’re living with creeping authoritarianism, AI disruption, climate change, social fragmentation, and a youth mental health crisis. Students feel it as much as the adults, but I worry that we’re not doing nearly enough to take on these issues in a way that matters to young people. If 2026 can be anything, maybe it's a portal into schools getting serious about how students get to interact with the world when they’re at school.

As always, I welcome comments and questions on Instagram @_dankearney_

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:20

Welcome to What's the Big Idea? I'm your host, Dan Carney. Let me start with a question. Is school life and life school or is it separate with life over here and school over there? I've been thinking about this question for a while, to what extent school feels like a meaningful part of students' life rather than an obligation that exists outside of real life. This thought has accelerated since the start of twenty twenty six. The killing of two American citizens in Minnesota, complete tragedies in their own right, have like George Floyd's murder or the invasion of Ukraine or fill in the blank, tilted our understanding of the world in some pretty fundamental ways. We all feel this, there's no doubt we feel the weight every time we open social media or the news or try to dodge certain topics with family and friends. But how is this showing up in schools? We're living in a world of creeping authoritarianism, AI disruption, climate change, social fragmentation, a youth mental health crisis. Students feel all this as much as the adults in the building. But I wonder and I worry that we're not doing enough to take on these issues in a way that matters to young people. There are many reasons for this with varying degrees of legitimacy, but if twenty twenty six can be anything, maybe it can be a portal into classrooms and schools getting serious about how they help students interact with the world when they're at school. After the killing of Alex Predi, I posted a question on Instagram. Is your school talking about Minnesota? A few people responded with not your job, just teach. But teach what? See, their comments were predicated on the belief that a school or a classroom can be neutral, that by simply sticking with the plan, going with the curriculum, ignoring the outside world, we are doing our jobs. In this view, schools don't take a stand. They discourage faculty from talking about current events, and they emphasize to families that they are not going to be quote unquote political. They're going to stick with the curriculum. And you can understand the appeal of this approach as it insulates the school from accusations of political bias or indoctrination. This can be especially appealing in communities where there are strong opinions coming from many sides. And there may be teachers who are fearful of stepping into what could be deemed political commentary. School admin doesn't want to deal with families asking why their child is talking about hot button issues in the classroom. So maybe you can understand the appeal, but this approach shortchanges students. For starters, it's plainly adult centered. Teachers and admin don't want to deal with student questions or they're fearful of what students might say. They don't want to handle the hard questions from families, and families worry what their child might hear at school. That approach does not take into account what students need in this moment. There's also just this character of educators in this worldview. And you see it, I think, predominantly in conservative media, the cartoonish teacher who's standing in front of the class and pontificating about causes and trying to brainwash students. It's just comical and unhelpful. But here's the bigger problem. Being silent as a school during times of tumults and the tearing of our social fabric is not the same as neutrality. Silence is political. When a school or classroom chooses to say nothing, it's saying a lot. And this is a passive neutrality, and it is itself a political choice, and one that bolsters the status quo. What results is a classroom that potentially ignores the fears, interests, and concerns of many students. The reality is that a school can be neutral, but it takes a kind of active neutrality. It's a neutrality that says we want to hear student voice, that we value their questions and their ideas. The role of the educator, therefore, becomes a neutral facilitator, a fair-minded moderator of discussion and conversation. The goal is to keep the temperature in the room at a low to moderate level so that productive conversation can happen. That's actual neutrality, one that honors student voice, one that says to families in the community, we recognize all your perspectives, but we are not going to shy away from the interest and questions that students have. This is very different than saying a teacher's going to walk into a classroom and announce that ICE agents have killed two people. Hey, let's talk about it. But the idea that students wouldn't want to talk about these topics and wouldn't have questions that they can process with their peers and a caring adult, that's absurd. It's ridiculous to think that a school could be neutral by being silent. We shouldn't forget that schools are charged with preparing students to live in a democratic society. If we are simply going to quote, stick to the curriculum in times of social upheaval and world changing events, well, how are we doing that? And the thing about this active neutrality that honors student voice, it does not require a carefully planned lesson. It doesn't require preparation of activities or a progression. It only requires a teacher or administrator who cares enough to hear students out, who's willing to go into a classroom and ask how they're feeling, what they're thinking, what questions do they have in this moment. In fact, these are the moments that allow schools to develop civil discourse, to model for students how we can talk with others about sensitive issues that maybe we don't agree with them about. These are the moments that help us shape humans who can go out into the world and continue to have productive conversations about important issues. Now, I'd be disingenuous if I didn't acknowledge that the aforementioned creeping authoritarianism is impacting our schools. Whether it's the disturbing normalization of book bans in schools and libraries around the country or the federal government's attempts to stymie DEI efforts in pretty much all black history, it's no wonder that some teachers would shy away from anything that could put them in the crosshairs of the feds or angry parent groups. But this is where school administrators play a crucial role. It's imperative that where truth is being taught, whether that's America's racial history or novels that center LGBTQ characters or a science class that examines climate change in an honest way, or a classroom that's willing to say to kids, how are you feeling about the state of the world right now? It's imperative that these practices are protected. It's important that Admin stands up for teachers, but more than that, it's essential that admin empowers teachers to know that when tough conversations come up, they are encouraged to help young people grapple with the world they're living in. And this might mean dedicating a staff meeting to talking about what this looks like. It might mean getting teachers the PD they need. But what it definitely means is admin having teachers' backs. In addition to ensuring that students feel heard and seen, opening up these conversations has another potential benefit, student action. Look, we know that teaching in 2026 is hard when so many of us feel like we're competing against phones, video games, social media, anything else that delivers instant gratification, especially in a gamified way. We also know from surveys that students find school less and less relevant to their lives as they get older. Well, what better way to make school meaningful than to bring the real world into it? Conversations about big issues, conversations that actually make students feel like their voice matters can lead to bigger things. Maybe that's research in one of their classes, maybe it's expressing their feelings through a piece of artwork, or writing a letter, or joining a protest, or leading an assembly at school. My point is when students are shown that they matter in the context of a big world or national or local event, they rise to the occasion. I've seen this many times, and I bet you have too. I'll wrap up by saying this. These conversations with students opening up the floor, so to speak, to student voice, and maybe encouraging student action that's rigor. I hate the word rigor. I hate when rigor is used in educational circles, because usually it's a stand-in for more homework, more tests, more AP classes, and frankly, less critical thinking. But now is the time to rethink rigor, frankly, to take the word back, and to think of it as students discussing important issues respectfully, students analyzing media literacy in real time, students asking what does this mean for us? What does this mean for our neighbors? Teachers facilitating dialogue rather than just delivering information, and a school community asking, how can we be part of the solution? Because I'm sure one of the legacies of 2026 is going to be more schools doubling down on traditional rigor. I mean they're here in Southern California, there are schools literally going back to Scantron tests. And I guarantee it's not because they think it's better, but because it's easier. It's not controversial. It has the facade of rigor. Hey, look, we're delivering content Monday through Thursday, we're Scantron testing your kids on Friday. How's that for college prep? Well, maybe it's great for college prep. I don't know. I I I doubt it. But it's not preparing kids for the real world. And I said at the beginning of this essay, commentary. Is it an essay? If I'm just speaking into a microphone, I guess it kind of is. Is school life and life school? Or is school over there and life's over here? I hope 2026 can be a portal into more school is life and life is school. But we gotta lean into those hard conversations. We gotta be willing to say to kids the world is complicated and you're part of it. Now let's be part of the solution. Thanks for listening, everyone. Really appreciate it. Check us out next time.