That is no longer a hypothetical. Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits was sued by the Federal Trade Commission, first during the Biden administration, for allegedly violating the Robinson-Patman Act, a 1936 antitrust law that forbids selling identical goods to rival customers at different prices. For anyone who shops at a big-box store, the FTC’s argument is sharp and, if you read it carefully, a little concerning: Southern Glazer’s offered discounts to large retailers like Costco and Walmart that were unavailable to smaller consumers. The agency claims that’s not competition. It’s prejudice.

For many years, the Robinson-Patman Act has lain dormant, mostly unenforced, and regarded as a holdover from a different economic era. Regulators who are currently keeping an eye on the case appear to think there is still something worth investigating. If the FTC wins, it’s possible that alcohol distribution will continue to have repercussions. The lawsuit’s reasoning is applicable to a wide range of products, including electronics, household goods, groceries, and pretty much anything that is offered in bulk at a discounted price. The very business strategy that maintains Costco’s competitive prices and narrow profit margins may be in jeopardy.

And there’s the other, stranger story that’s happening at the same time. In March, a Costco member filed a class-action lawsuit in a federal court in Illinois, claiming that the company had raised prices during the tariff wars, secretly requested government reimbursement for those same tariffs after the Supreme Court declared several of them unconstitutional, and then assured customers that they would receive “future lower prices” instead of direct reimbursement. According to CEO Ron Vachris, the company’s goal is to improve overall pricing in order to return value. According to the plaintiffs, that is an easy solution for a business that has already received the funds.

Observing this from the outside gives the impression that Costco built its whole brand around the idea that paying a membership fee entitles you to something more honest and equitable than your typical grocery store. That is quietly punctured by the lawsuit. Whether or not it is successful legally, it raises an issue that is more difficult to ignore: who exactly benefited if a retailer raises prices when tariffs are imposed and refuses to reimburse customers when those tariffs are declared invalid?

The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act, which aims to strengthen the very antitrust provisions that make bulk discount models legally vulnerable, is currently making its way through the Senate in Congress. Proponents contend that the law gives small retailers, who have been under pressure for decades, a level playing field. Walmart shareholders are not the ones who would be most affected by the price increase, according to critics, many of whom are consumer advocates. They are the customers who fill those enormous shopping carts.

It’s difficult to ignore how these two legal threads are tightening around a retail model that has been largely uncontested for thirty years. These structures weren’t invented by Costco and Walmart. They refined them, made them seem inevitable, and optimized them. Regulators allowed bulk pricing to succeed. Sitting in federal courtrooms where the answer is still being debated, one motion at a time, it is now genuinely unclear whether that will continue.

The warehouses remain operational. The discounts are still available. However, the underlying legal framework is changing in ways that may take years to fully comprehend.⁖※⃁⃹⃎

The post The Discount Is Under Arrest – How a 1930s Law Could Wipe Out Costco and Walmart’s Best Deals appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

A class-action lawsuit against the retail behemoth is based on this allegation, which is already clearly hurting a stock that didn’t need any more problems. HD shares are currently trading at about $304, a far cry from the analyst consensus target of about $401, down about 11% over the last thirty days. It’s difficult to say for sure if the lawsuit caused that slide or if it just happened at a bad time. But in markets, timing is crucial.

According to the lawsuit, Home Depot installed AI-enabled license plate readers throughout the parking lots of its stores, tracking consumer movements without the required authorization and purportedly disclosing that information to law enforcement. Advocates for privacy have been outspoken in their criticism. A few state legislators have noticed. Additionally, investors who have been keeping an eye on data governance issues are not discounting this one, particularly after witnessing companies like Meta and Google spend years and billions navigating similar territory.

It’s important to take a step back and think about what this type of lawsuit really means. Using AI tools for everything from inventory management to loss prevention, retailers have been discreetly growing their surveillance infrastructure. That isn’t controversial by nature. However, there is a significant distinction between operating what some refer to as a “shadow tracking system” on public roads and parking lots and utilizing technology within a store to track inventory. A different discussion about civil liberties rather than just retail efficiency starts when customer data and law enforcement access collide.

Only a few days after the lawsuit gained more attention, Home Depot’s first quarter fiscal 2026 results revealed a company that is still essentially stable. At $41.8 billion, sales were up almost 5% from the previous year. Ted Decker, the company’s CEO, reiterated the company’s full-year guidance by pointing to strong underlying demand despite consumer uncertainty and ongoing pressures on housing affordability. The earnings per diluted share came in at $3.30, which is marginally less than the $3.45 from the previous year. While this figure isn’t particularly concerning, it also doesn’t reassure anxious investors.

The lawsuit seems to have reached a difficult turning point for Home Depot, as the company is attempting to project operational stability while the public and regulators are raising more pointed concerns about the amount of data that retail companies should be permitted to gather and distribute. This is not an abstract reputational dimension. Consumer trust is genuinely brittle, especially for a brand based on familiarity with the community.

It’s still unclear if this lawsuit will result in large fines or a small settlement that is discreetly incorporated into operating expenses. However, it appears that the pressure isn’t going away quietly given the investor activism pressuring Home Depot to be more transparent about privacy and AI governance. As you watch this develop, it becomes clear that the management’s response over the next few quarters—in court filings, disclosures, and actual policy changes—will be far more significant than the Q1 numbers could ever be. The orange carts will continue to travel. What’s being monitored while they work is the question.

The post HD Stock Price Takes a Hit – What Home Depot’s AI Lawsuit Really Means for Your Portfolio appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

Jona Rechnitz, an Orthodox Jewish jeweler, businessman, and convicted felon, is the defendant. Over the past few years, Rechnitz has somehow grown to be Mayweather’s closest financial confidante. At Lakers games and Israeli charity events, Mayweather with the diamond chain and platinum smile and Rechnitz in his black velvet yarmulke made an odd couple. It appeared to be a sincere friendship based on a common interest in philanthropy. During their collaboration, Mayweather even gave more than a million dollars to Jewish organizations, visiting Israel after October 7th in what Rechnitz kindly referred to as “holy work.”

At a public forum organized by The Real Deal a year ago, Mayweather declared, “I trust Jona — not just 10 percent, 20 percent — 100 percent,” in reference to Rechnitz. It’s the kind of statement that now sounds different. Either Mayweather’s performance of trust was a component of a larger unraveling, or he was genuinely unaware of what was purportedly going on around him. It’s difficult to determine which scenario is more disturbing.

The lawsuit lays out a long list of accusations that are frankly astounding. A $7.5 million wire transfer intended for a twelve-month investment was sent to Frist Apex Ventures, a Florida-based company led by co-defendant Ayal Frist. The money never returned, and it is said that it never was. $15 million in settlement proceeds were misappropriated. Frist Apex received over $8 million of a $16.4 million loan on four of Mayweather’s properties without any justification. Mayweather pledged nearly $100 million worth of jewelry to two Miami jewelers for just $13 million; the lawsuit claims that Rechnitz carried out this transaction without Mayweather’s knowledge. One of those jewelers threatened to liquidate the items in a text message at one point. Rechnitz supposedly concurred. It seems that Mayweather was unaware.

The jet comes next. The buyer’s name was left blank on the bill of sale for Mayweather’s 1996 Gulfstream IV. He says he signed it at Rechnitz’s recommendation and is still unsure of the aircraft’s buyer. According to reports, the funds were used for both Frist Apex and a Bugatti-related obligation. Mayweather didn’t receive any of it.

Since financial relationships at this size can become genuinely complex and it can be difficult to distinguish between authorized and unauthorized actions, it’s possible that some of this was mismanagement rather than malice. However, after reading the complaint, it seems clear that this goes far beyond mistakes in paperwork. Money flowing in one direction while explanations don’t follow is an overly recurring pattern.

Rechnitz has a noteworthy past. He cooperated with federal prosecutors to have his sentence reduced after entering a guilty plea to bribing NYPD officers in 2016. Mayweather’s lawsuit claims that when Rechnitz claimed to be his financial manager, he never revealed this criminal history. Although that case was dropped, both men had also been connected to a purported cryptocurrency pump-and-dump scheme. There were also lawsuits pertaining to ticket sales. It turns out that the paper trail on Rechnitz was lengthy and visible, but Mayweather didn’t seem to notice it, or at least not quickly enough.

This lawsuit actually exposes more than just financial carelessness or even fraud. It’s the peculiar vulnerability that results from extraordinary wealth and extraordinary trust falling into the wrong hands. Mayweather read opponents, defended himself, and never left an opening to win fifty professional bouts. Nevertheless, he left one open in between the real estate transactions, the charity functions, and the outward displays of allegiance. Maybe it cost him more than any battle ever.

The post I Trust Him 100 Percent — How Floyd Mayweather’s Faith in Jona Rechnitz Cost Him $175 Million appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

Before what was meant to be a happy celebration in Center City, Philadelphia, Lopez hired Traci R. Lawton, who ran a company called Wedding Kiss Ballroom. Over $6,000 paid up front for a discounted package that included decorations, catering, and music seemed like a fair deal. Lawton had a polished social media presence. She had a cozy, almost spiritual branding. Lopez admitted to Bored Panda that she even gave Lawton a pass because, in her words, she appeared to be “a godly woman.”

Looking back, the warning signs were there. Lawton stopped communicating as soon as the entire payment cleared. Planning meetings were scheduled, but there was no follow-up. Texts and emails went unanswered. In retrospect, this type of behavior seems scripted: take the money, cut off communication, and hope the client remains patient. Lopez remained patient until Lawton told her that the caterer had been involved in a car accident and had left the location an hour before her ceremony.

At that point, everything fell apart. As soon as Lopez entered her own wedding, she was informed that it had been “a day from hell”—a description that would subsequently characterize the way this story spread online. When the food did arrive, it was incorrect, delayed, and far from what she had paid for and ordered. There was never a memorial table set up to honor her late grandmother and her late husband’s father, complete with a picture she personally sent Lawton to print. There was nothing.

Then the most bizarre aspect of the whole catastrophe emerged. Lawton lost the marriage license. The legal document. The one document that gives a wedding legal validity. It had disappeared after Lopez gave it to her to sign. To verify that her marriage had truly taken place, she had to return, submit documentation, and deal with bureaucracy.

The lawsuit against Ashley Lopez’s wedding planner did not start right away. Lawton allegedly promised Lopez a refund at one point and then completely stopped communicating, ghosting her the way you might ghost a casual acquaintance rather than someone you’d accepted thousands of dollars from. Lopez concluded that going to court was the only remaining option at that point. What transpired next—Lopez won by default and Lawton failed to show up for the proceedings—is difficult to avoid feeling a certain grim satisfaction.

But she hasn’t gotten any cash. Anyone who has gone through small claims court will tell you that winning a lawsuit is not the same as actually collecting what is owed. Lopez has expressed his dissatisfaction publicly in the hopes that the public’s attention would alter the course of events.

This story actually reveals more than just one unscrupulous vendor. Within the US wedding industry, which brings in over $100 billion a year, it is surprisingly simple for someone with a strong social media presence and a memorable moniker to obtain sizable upfront payments with minimal accountability. In the midst of planning, couples are under time pressure, emotionally invested, and—perhaps most dangerously—prone to trust. Lopez’s story serves as a reminder that trust is costly without confirmation. Sometimes it costs you both the memorial to the people you’ve already lost and your marriage license.

The post Ashley Lopez Wedding Planner Lawsuit – How a Philadelphia Bride Took the ‘Fairy Bride Mother’ to Court appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

The lawsuit’s origins date back to 2019 and 2020, when a former IRS employee disclosed Trump’s private tax returns. The Trump camp’s rage was sufficiently sincere. Leaks of tax returns are a serious matter, and everyone, not just presidents, is protected by federal law. However, the way this lawsuit was filed, litigated, and eventually dropped has drawn criticism from legal observers in ways that are hard to ignore.

Simplified, this is what transpired: Trump and the Department of Justice, the very government that Trump’s administration controls, decided to drop the case. In return, the Department of Justice declared the establishment of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The number itself seems intentional, a reference to 1776, a type of branding that works well on some cable networks. The Justice Department claims that the fund would enable people to seek taxpayer-backed compensation for allegations of government overreach, including defendants pardoned by Trump on January 6. Some of those claims might be true. It’s also difficult to ignore who stands to gain the most.

Given that Trump’s own administration was effectively suing itself, Miami-based U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams had been gradually raising the question of whether Trump even had a case to pursue. Deadlines for court cases were drawing near. Suddenly, both parties filed for dismissal. There was no mention of a settlement. No paperwork was shared with the judge. The settlement was made public that same afternoon by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who coincidentally served as Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to assuming the position.

Judge Williams pointed out that the dismissal notice made no mention of a settlement. She made a straightforward, drama-free observation. However, what came next was anything but peaceful. In a motion, 35 former federal judges claimed the court had been duped and that the dismissal was an attempt to avoid judicial review of what they described as a collusive arrangement “from the start.” A three-paragraph amendment that would permanently prohibit the IRS from pursuing audits of Trump’s previous returns surfaced one day after the original announcement. Trump may owe up to $100 million from those unfinished reviews, according to earlier reports.

Judge Williams consented to reopen the case. Her order required the DOJ and Trump to provide an explanation for the claims of collusion and whether there had ever been actual legal adversity between the two parties. From the outside, it appears that the court is being asked to consider something unsettling: the possibility that a lawsuit was used to create the legal framework for a financial arrangement that no legislation ever approved, rather than to seek justice. Republicans in Congress, who aren’t exactly Trump’s natural opponents, have already proposed legislation to outlaw the fund on the grounds that it goes beyond executive authority. Democrats have been more vocal in denouncing it as a slush fund.

It is still genuinely unclear whether the fund will survive a legal challenge, whether the settlement will stand, and whether the reopened case will result in anything significant. It is obvious that a sitting president suing his own government and then reaching a settlement with himself using taxpayer funds while avoiding personal tax liability is the kind of arrangement that would raise concerns in any courtroom, regardless of time period. It seems that the judge concurs.

The post Trump’s $10 Billion IRS Lawsuit Dismissed — But the Real Story Is Just Beginning appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

Busch has long been known in the NASCAR community as a man who drives hard and makes wise choices. It’s not by accident that two Cup Series titles are won. However, in 2017, Rodney Smith, an insurance agent from Arizona, allegedly entered the Busch family’s financial life with a pitch that must have sounded almost too good: indexed universal life insurance policies, or IULs, that were marketed as tax-free retirement plans, self-sustaining after just five years of premium payments, and promised significant returns with little disclosed risk. The Busches agreed. Between 2018 and 2022, five distinct policies totaling more than $90 million in life insurance coverage were acquired.

The sixth premium notice then showed up. Five payments would suffice, Busch had been informed. The structure began to show signs of stress fractures after that sixth bill, which was the first crack in the story he had been sold. Over $10.4 million in premiums were paid by the couple. They claimed that in exchange, they were given false estimates, irrational assumptions, and what their lawsuit called “material omissions” regarding the actual costs and risks associated with the product. They sued Pacific Life and Smith in October 2025 in an attempt to recoup losses totaling more than $8.5 million.

The lawsuit presented an unsettling but well-known image: one in which complex financial illustrations are used to obscure rather than to inform, and in which commissions subtly outweigh client interests. Many consumers of comparable IUL products may have signed identical contracts without realizing what they were getting into. Busch’s case just so happened to be big enough and well-known enough to partially lift the curtain.

Pacific Life, on the other hand, firmly resisted. The business claimed that the Busches had surrendered some policies, allowed some to expire, failed to fully fund their coverage, and signed numerous documents attesting to the policy’s terms. Additionally, they brought up a statute of limitations argument, pointing out that the lawsuit was filed seven years after the policies were first implemented. This type of defense is legally sound, but it falls short in addressing the human reality of what was supposedly promised versus what was actually delivered.

The case reached an out-of-court settlement by late February 2026. The terms were kept private. The standard language regarding constructive resolution was released by both parties. The business moved on.

The story itself did not progress. Following a sudden illness that included double pneumonia and sepsis, Busch passed away in May 2026 at the age of 41. Almost immediately after, social media started spreading the story that his family had been financially exposed, unprotected, and victims of their own insurance battle. Robert Rikard, his lawyer, would have none of it. He went to LinkedIn with a sharp, almost irate rebuttal, pointing out a “false narrative” and making it abundantly evident that the Busch family had replaced their expired policies with better coverage—substantial lifetime death benefit protection set up with the assistance of an independent insurance specialist.

As this develops, it seems that the lawsuit achieved something that even a courtroom win might not have: it forced a public discussion about the marketing of indexed universal life insurance. It is now irrelevant whether Pacific Life violated any laws. The question of whether the industry as a whole consistently overpromises these products remains unanswered. Throughout his career, Kyle Busch pursued speed. Ultimately, he was caught off guard by a financial product that moved too quickly and had insufficient visibility.

The post Kyle Busch’s $8.5 Million Betrayal – How a NASCAR Legend Got Scammed by His Own Insurance appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

A federal lawsuit alleging unlawful incarceration was settled last week when Perry County, Tennessee, agreed to pay Bushart $835,000. Only a few weeks before the case was scheduled to go before a federal jury in Memphis, the settlement was announced on May 20. With the help of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Bushart, a 61-year-old retired police officer, filed the lawsuit, claiming that his constitutional rights had been violated in a way that was so blatant and preventable that only deliberate disregard could account for it.

It’s not just the arrest that makes this story unsettling. It’s the line of reasoning that brought it about. At the time, Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems admitted that the majority of Bushart’s posts qualified as free speech. Additionally, he admitted that he was aware that the meme was about a school shooting in Iowa rather than Tennessee. Nevertheless, an arrest warrant was obtained. In any case, a $2 million bond was established. Despite having no prior record, a retired police officer was imprisoned for five weeks. It’s the kind of sequence that leaves you wondering exactly what the participants believed they were doing.

Here, the background is important. In the tense, emotional days after Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist who was shot and killed at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, was assassinated, Bushart shared the meme. In communities that respected Kirk, grief was real. A candlelight vigil was held in Perry County. Emotions were running high, and it seems that local officials made poor decisions in that heat and continued to do so long after better judgment should have won out.

During those 37 days, Bushart lost his post-retirement job. His wedding anniversary was missed. No lawsuit settlement, no matter how large, can truly restore the moment he lost when his granddaughter was born. That detail is especially difficult to comprehend. For a Facebook post, the bond was set at $2 million. He just couldn’t afford it. He took a seat.

Following the settlement, he made a measured, almost cautious statement. “The people’s freedom to participate in civil discourse is crucial to a healthy democracy,” he stated. Not exactly a man enjoying a lap of victory. More like someone who is still a little taken aback that any of it took place at all.

Such cases seldom occur in isolation. Courts around the nation are still debating where to draw the line between social media expression and actual threat, which can be quite challenging in certain situations. However, it doesn’t seem like this case lived close to that boundary. Referencing a public figure’s own remarks, the meme made a political statement. According to the sheriff’s own words, he was aware of this.

Public funds will provide the $835,000. In a way, Perry County citizens will be responsible for the choices made by their sheriff. Sitting with that is worthwhile. On paper, the settlement upholds Bushart’s rights. It’s still unclear if this will affect how local authorities use their authority the next time a community is in mourning and someone says something offensive.

The post Larry Bushart Settlement – How a Retired Cop Won $835,000 After Being Jailed for a Facebook Meme appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

That last bit matters more than it sounds. In legal language, dropping a case “without prejudice” means the firm can come right back and refile if it changes its mind. It’s not a settlement—at least not the kind that typically brings a chapter to an end. Had Shilo paid up, the docket would almost certainly read “with prejudice,” sealing it shut. The fact that it doesn’t leaves the whole thing dangling, awkwardly, like an unfinished sentence.

Barnes & Thornburg LLP, the firm that filed the suit last November, isn’t talking. An attorney didn’t respond to USA Today’s request for comment, and that silence itself feels telling. Big firms don’t usually walk away from six-figure invoices for the fun of it. Something happened behind the scenes, and whatever it was, no one involved seems eager to share. There’s a sense that the firm may simply have decided the chase wasn’t worth it, at least for now.

The context of this little mystery is what makes it intriguing. The son of Colorado coach Deion Sanders, Shilo Sanders, is already embroiled in a much more serious legal predicament. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy back in October 2023, weighed down by an $11.89 million judgment owed to John Darjean, a former school security guard who said Shilo punched and elbowed him in the neck during a 2015 dispute over a confiscated phone. Shilo did not appear to defend the initial lawsuit. The rest was taken care of by the default judgment.

This is the uncomfortable part of the story. According to Darjean, the entire mess could have been settled for pennies on the dollar a decade ago. He told USA Today’s Brent Schrotenboer he would have accepted around $200,000 back then, an amount that probably wouldn’t have moved the needle in Deion Sanders’ world. Instead, in a 2016 TMZ interview, Deion called him a “real life grifter.” That, Darjean says, is when the number ballooned in his mind to $100 million. Pride, it turns out, has a price tag.

Watching this unfold, it’s hard not to wonder how much of the current chaos traces back to that single decision. The bankruptcy trial is scheduled for August 31, and the central question will be whether Shilo’s actions count as a “willful and malicious injury.” If so, the debt sticks. If not, it gets discharged and Darjean is left chasing scraps through a slow, grinding collection process that might never produce real money.

Shilo, meanwhile, is in a strange kind of limbo. He recently named the Browns, Dolphins, and Cowboys as his preferred NFL destinations, then almost in the same breath admitted he’s no longer training for football. “It takes a special kind of guy to see the light at the end of the tunnel,” he replied, “and I don’t think there’s any light in my tunnel.” That’s a striking line from a 25-year-old former Power Five defensive back, and not the kind of thing athletes usually say out loud.

The dropped lawsuit is just a footnote, really. But footnotes sometimes tell you more than the headlines. Somewhere in those unanswered phone calls and unexplained court filings is a story about how a family famous for confidence keeps colliding with the limits of what confidence can actually fix.

The post The Quiet Disappearance of a Lawsuit Against Shilo Sanders appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

Denise Okafor, the principal, had placed a wager. The kind that keeps a school administrator up at night wondering if she’d just spent a portion of her discretionary budget on something she couldn’t easily explain to a superintendent, rather than the kind that is documented in policy papers or mentioned at district meetings. Okafor has been the director of Frederick Douglass Preparatory in West Baltimore for six years. By October, she had seen a decline in attendance, a leveling off of classroom enthusiasm, and the fatigue of good teachers. She had attempted interventions. She had attempted data reviews. She had attempted meetings in the morning. Then she had hired a poet, almost on the spur of the moment.

The poet-in-residence program was, at the very least, unusual in a district where most discussions revolve around chronic absenteeism and standardized test performance, even though it wasn’t wholly original—a few schools across the nation have experimented with artists embedded in academic settings. It wasn’t presented by Okafor as an artistic endeavor. She presented it as a cultural issue that required human intervention. She recognized the difference.

It’s difficult to accurately measure what transpired over the next few months, which is likely why it hasn’t received the attention it merits. After class, students who had been quietly disengaged began to linger. Conversations in the hallway changed. Instructors noted that children were coming in and reading things they had written the previous evening because they wanted someone to hear them, not because they were asked to. Her English teacher described a poem written by a 10th grader who had transferred from three different schools in two years as the most impactful student work she had seen in fifteen years. The poem was about her grandmother.

The timing might have been advantageous. The burden of a city that doesn’t always make childhood easy has been borne by Baltimore’s schools for years. Many of these classrooms have grief ingrained in them, grief that standardized curricula subtly avoid and textbooks aren’t designed to address. It turns out that poetry doesn’t avoid anything. It asks the difficult question as soon as it enters the room.

Okafor understands the boundaries of what a single artist-in-residence can accomplish. She’ll tell you straight out. The structural issues remain structural. There are still funding gaps. However, as students pass through her building now, the noise has a different quality—less friction, more engagement, something that resembles a sincere commitment to being present. By the middle of the year, chronic absenteeism, which had been steadily rising for years, had significantly decreased. It’s actually unclear if that’s a correlation or a cause. However, it is difficult to ignore the timing.

Okafor realized that culture isn’t created by compliance, which is something that many education policies still find difficult to understand. Identity is the foundation of it. A student starts to realize that they belong somewhere when they see their own experience reflected back to them and treated as something worth analyzing and expressing. It turns out that a poet can accomplish that task in ways that even the most committed classroom teacher, overburdened by thirty students and five periods, can’t always accomplish on their own.

The academic year is still ongoing. It’s still unclear if this will be a recurring feature or just one noteworthy experiment. However, the poet continues to return for the time being. And the pupils continue to arrive.

The post How One Baltimore Principal’s Decision to Hire a Creative Poet-in-Residence Changed the Culture of Her Entire School appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.

For eleven years, Medina has been an elementary school teacher in Los Angeles. She talks about feeling as though she was controlling chaos that she didn’t comprehend for the first four. No matter how carefully she prepared a lesson, there were students who seemed unreachable, kids who erupted without warning, and kids who just stared at the wall. “I kept thinking something was wrong with them,” she said. “It took me years to figure out the question I was asking was completely backwards.”

This change in perspective—from “what is wrong with this child” to “what happened to this child”—is the foundation of what educators now refer to as trauma-informed teaching. The notion that students may be bringing invisible wounds into the classroom is not theoretical in Los Angeles, where violent crime rates have historically exceeded national averages. It is a fact of everyday life. According to a National Institutes of Health study, teachers who underwent structured trauma training reported being much better at helping struggling students—not because the kids changed right away, but rather because the teachers stopped misinterpreting them.

In the end, Medina finished a six-week trauma awareness course provided by LAUSD, a program that has been subtly growing throughout the district in recent years. Her teaching methods were not the only things she changed as a result of what she discovered there. It reorganized her understanding of how people behave under pressure. Children who are exposed to long-term violence or instability frequently develop neurological fight-or-flight responses that make it extremely difficult for them to think logically. They’re not acting rebelliously. They are being shielded by their brains.

Medina’s story is unique because of more than just her metamorphosis. That was her next action. She began incorporating movement and artistic expression into her regular classroom routine, including storytelling, rhythmic exercises, controlled breathing, and drawing. Instead of being a distinct wellness period, it is integrated into science, math, and reading. A collaborative mural that depicted fractions helped kids who couldn’t stay still during a worksheet maintain focus. It sounds out of the ordinary. The results of the test indicated otherwise.

Like real things, word spread slowly. A nearby educator posed inquiries. Next, a principal. After school, a small, unofficial working group was formed, with teachers coming together on their own initiative to discuss what was working. That detail is noteworthy because no one ordered it. These were worn-out individuals who decided to stay later because something seemed to be working at last.

A city gradually coming to terms with what its children have truly endured is reflected in the larger movement that Medina helped spark. Beautiful and brutal, ambitious and profoundly unequal, Los Angeles has always been a complex place. Generations of that tension have been absorbed in its classrooms. Some people still view the notion that creative learning could serve as a kind of healing and that a child drawing a picture is also processing something that couldn’t be processed in any other way as experimental.

Medina might object to being called a “movement leader.” On a Wednesday afternoon, she stands close to her whiteboard and characterizes herself as a teacher who grew weary of failing students who she could see were making an effort. It may be more important to focus on that honesty than any policy or program.

The post The Los Angeles Teacher Who Turned Trauma-Informed Teaching Into a Citywide Creative Learning Movement appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.