It's unsettling to feel inspired and angry at the same time. Last week, I was lucky enough to be able to spend some time on the phone with Kala Clark, a high school senior in Maine who succeeded in having the state legislature pass a new law recognizing the right of siblings separated in foster care to visit and spend time together. Kala, who was moved to action by being separated from her two little brothers when she went into care, is articulate, motivated, intelligent -- and still sad about what she and her brothers missed.

This morning, I found the May/June issue of Represent! in my mailbox. Represent!, a publication of Youth Communication, is written by teens in foster care. This new issue zeroes in on the same painful reality: while keeping siblings together when possible, and maintaining contact between them when it is not, is a stated priority of child welfare departments around the country, the truth is that in most places, not enough is being done to safeguard this important relationship. These young people write powerfully about how they experienced the loss of contact with their brothers and sisters, how angry they were, how damaging it was to their efforts to succeed in school and life, how much it still hurts years later.

Something that came out both in my talk with Kala and in several of the stories in Represent! is that the sibling bond in troubled families is often extra strong. Before kids are taken into care, they've often spent years raising each other. The older children become the ones who change the diapers, pack the lunches, go to the school plays, clean the clothes and kiss the skinned knees of their little brothers and sisters. So when child welfare agencies step in and separate these sibling groups, the pain is intense -- as is the guilt, especially among the older sibs.

Certainly many agencies and child welfare workers do a lot to try and keep the connection alive, and it's not a simple assignment. But this is an issue that needs to move further up the priority list...along with the legal issues around sibling visits after a child is legally adopted. These kids lose so much, they should be allowed to hang on to each other.

Is Brian Woods of Akron, Ohio a) a great dad, or b) a scofflaw?

Daniel Woods, Brian's autistic son, probably would go for a). Unhappy with the quality of Daniel's education, Brian sued the school board and won several changes in Daniel's educational plan and about $160,000, according to a recent article in the New York Times

But the Cleveland Bar Association leans towards b). That's because Brian pursued his lawsuit without paying an attorney. Brian Woods was thus engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in the view of the bar, which sued Woods seeking $10,000 in fines, lawyers fee, and a promise that he would not assist other parents seeking to represent their own children in court.

The Ohio Supreme Court was skeptical, and the association withdrew its complaint -- for now. Whether it's resurrected will depend on how the United States Supreme Court decides to rule in a pending case involving another set of Ohio parents with an autistic son. Jeff and Sandee Winkelman are pursuing a lawsuit against the Parma, Ohio school district. A federal appeals court ordered the Winkelmans to find a lawyer or face dismissal of the court, but Justice John Paul Stevens issued a stay of that order in December 2005.

The issue of parents representing their children "pro se" (without counsel) in IDEA cases won't go away without clear guidance from the Supremes. Some kind of ruling in the case could come soon.

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates has filed a brief in support of the Winkelman's, noting that the cost of representation in a federal appeal can easily soar past $10,000, and that lawyers with expertise in special education are in short supply.

The position of those who insist that parents must hire lawyers in these cases would probably sit a lot better with parents and advocates for children if it was accompanied by a major commitment to providing such services pro bono for families that don't have that kind of money to spend. There's plenty of evidence that low-income and minority children are already under-served and over-identified for special education.

Last month, I wrote about Florida's welcome decision to shut down its four remaining "boot camps" for juvenile offenders, in favor of somewhat gentler approaches to young kids in trouble with the law. The closure was the latest fallout from the death of 14-year-old Martin Anderson while in the custody of one of the camps.

Now, the investigation into Martin's death has taken a giant step forward with the release of a second autopsy report, which concludes that Martin did not die as the result of sickle-cell trait, a blood disorder which is only rarely fatal, as the first autopsy concluded. Instead, says the new report by Hillsborough County chief medical examiner Vernard Adams, "Martin Anderson's death was caused by suffocation due to the actions of guards at the boot camp. The suffocation caused by manual (blockage) of the mouth, in concert with forced inhalation of ammonia fumes that caused spasm of the vocal cords resulting in internal blockage of the upper airway."

The author of the original autopsy report, Bay County Medical Examiner Charles Siebert, is still standing by his sickle-cell story, but he seems to be standing alone.

Martin's family is said to be taking some comfort in the new findings, and in the hope that someday, someone might be called to account for the brutal treatment Martin suffered at the hands of state authorities. A videotape of that treatment is available online, at the Justice for Martin website.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi delivered a sharp lesson this week to the students of Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Ill. -- which was, being right is no guarantee you'll be treated right.

Meanwhile, Barbour has demonstrated his own failure to learn a lesson most of us learn way before high school -- which is that it's never too late to say you're sorry.

Barbour declared that there will be no posthumous pardon for Clyde Kennard, a black man who was falsely accused of stealing $25 worth of chicken feed, sentenced to seven years in prison, and died of cancer three years later -- all for having tried to enroll in Mississippi Southern University, which at the time was all-white. The whole thing was a set-up, and files of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission show that state officials had openly discussed either framing Kennard, or killing him, to prevent his enrollment.

Three Stevenson High students -- Mona Ghadiri, Agnes Mazur, and Callie McCune -- collaborated with Professor Steven A. Drizin and the Northwestern University School Of Law Center On Wrongful Convictions on a campaign to try to convince Barbour to issue a posthumous pardon and expunge Kennard's record. They put together a comprehensive web site in support of Kennard and collected support from around the country.

Barbour and the state of Mississippi have acknowledged that Kennard was wronged. March 30 was Clyde Kennard Day in Mississippi, and on that date Barbour issued a proclamation honoring Kennard's determination and his role in the history of the civil rights movement. But it seems an actual pardon would be an apology too far....

Barbour's spokesman said that such a pardon would be "an empty gesture," adding, "There's nothing the governor can do for Clyde Kennard right now."

Kind of makes it sound like Kennard's life, wrongful conviction, and death are ancient history. But in fact, Kennard was convicted in 1960 and died in 1963. We're still listening to some of the same songs on the radio that he would have heard. So no, it isn't too late for Mississippi to say it's sorry. Maybe it's too soon.

Recently, I've seen a few widening cracks in the stubborn resistance of many teachers I know to the use of electronic communications technology. One in particular, who used to almost boast of her inability to send, receive, open or otherwise connect with e-mail, now is in regular touch through her school-based e-mail account.

The problem is, she and her colleagues are chasing a fast-moving target. A new NetDay survey of how teachers and students use technology reveals the sad truth: just as the percentage of teachers who use e-mail to communicate with students is finally reaching critical mass -- more than a third -- students are leaving e-mail behind for the real-time charms of Instant Messaging.

There is a touch of cause-and-effect at work, I suspect. Teens are always figuratively posting that "Keep Out" sign on the door. And this means you, parents and teachers. So as teachers embrace e-mail, students flee to a new technological island they can call their own. According to the NetDay survey, about 65 percent of students in grades 6-12 use e-mail or IM every day. But students are much more likely to use IM to communicate with each other. E-mail is now mostly used for communicating with adults.

The question now is what comes next -- will teachers and parents break the IM barrier? Don't expect to find me among the advance guard -- what I love about e-mail is that it doesn't get in your face, tug on your sleeve, or otherwise pester you for an immediate response. But hey, you go on ahead without me, and send me an e-mail to tell me what you find.

More than $22 billion -- that's how much researchers estimate underage drinkers spent on alcohol products in 2001. That's almost as much as was spent by alcohol-dependent adults -- $26 billion. And together, these two groups of people (who according to law and convention shouldn't be drinking at all) account for more than a third of the alcohol industry's sales.

The findings, from work led by Susan E. Foster of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, make it pretty clear that the public health messages young people get about the dangers of drinking are no match for the societal forces that make it not just acceptable, but expected, for this age group to experiment with alcohol.

And they raise some very tough questions for parents of pre-teens and teens, especially those many millions of us who buy and consume alcohol ourselves. My husband and I never thought twice, when our kids were young, about drinking wine with dinner or having a couple of cocktails at a weekend party. But now, I can't help thinking about the "do as I say, not as I do" message that we're sending. Not that my parents' generation ever seemed to feel much angst over that -- "Because I said so" seemed like enough of a reason back then.

But alcoholism runs like a destructive thread through so many families, including my own, and no one wants to see their child wrestle with that.

And then there's the research that indicates one of the best ways to prevent alcohol dependence is to delay the age at which regular drinking begins. According to some research, people who begin drinking before age 15 are four times as likely to become dependent on alchohol as those who start after they turn 21.

Of course, that's another example of research that really doesn't do much to help set practical parenting guidelines. I can't help wondering if the kids who start drinking before age 15 aren't already predisposed to do so. So, is the early onset of drinking the cause of later dependence, or simply a symptom?

No way I can figure that out in my free time.

I gave up alcohol while I was pregnant. (But not caffeine. Got to draw the line on maternal sacrifice somewhere.) Should I give it up while my kids are teens? That's a long time to go without -- especially during what are billed as the highest-stress years of parenting. But it would be good for my health, no doubt. It's worth thinking about.

The Florida legislature has agreed to do away with the state's four remaining boot camps for juvenile offenders, and replace them with a "softer" program. The decision, which includes some increased funding, is a fitting memorial for 14-year-old Martin Anderson, who died one day after entering the Bay County boot camp in January. Though the doctor who performed the first autopsy on Anderson ruled his death was due to sickle-cell trait, a usually non-fatal blood disorder, the release of a video from the boot camp showing guards beating Anderson raised questions about that result. A second autopsy was carried out with the consent of Anderson's parents, but the results haven't been made public.

The new plan calls for the four boot camps to be reorganized using a program called STAR -- Sheriff's Training and Respect.

The key difference: a prohibition on using psychological intimidation techniques and physical force, except in very specific instances when guards or other young people are in danger of physical harm. And there's going to be more rigorous training for staff. The Bradenton Herald has a good overview.

The camps would be monitored by an independent body, the Juvenile Justice Accountability Commission, whose members will be appointed by the governor. The boot camps were not subject to independent monitoring, which may have led to some of the problems. There will be a new focus on education, and juveniles will be monitored after they are released through an after-care program in an effort to reduce recidivism.

Three of the four boot camps had a recidivism rate of close to 50 percent with a year of "graduation," pretty poor results for a system that put kids at such risk. To me, any program that has "pain compliance" as part of its strategy for dealing with teenage offenders is wrong-headed and wrong-hearted from the get-go, but you'd like to at least see results....

(The fourth camp, with a recidivism rate of 23 percent, differed from the others in that it included an after-care component to help kids transition back to school or work in their communities.)

It won't bring back Martin Anderson, but it's a step towards more humane -- and effective -- juvenile justice in Florida.

So it's come to this.

Omaha's troubled urban school district is now poised, with the blessing of Nebraska's legislature and governor, to divide itself into three separate districts -- one mostly black, one mostly hispanic, and one mostly white. And the man behind it is the state's one-and-only black lawmaker, State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha.

How Omaha and Nebraska have wound up here is a fascinating and complicated story, with lessons for every struggling majority-minority urban district in this country. And thoughtful Nebraskans have a lot to say about it.

In her piece in the Northern Star Online, columnist Jessica King worries about the inherent lesson children will learn from the proposed district set-up... "How can students learn the cultural value of diversity if they're told the school district they belong to is purposely segregated? How are they supposed to learn that the color of their skin is not their most important feature? How are they supposed to learn about and understand other races and ethnicities?"

For his part, Chambers argues passionately that minority children will gain, because districts will be controlled by adults from the same minority, who will have their best interests at heart.

For some insight into how at least two clued-in Nebraska parents feel about the plan, check out this discussion between A’Jamal-Rashad Byndon, an African-American parent of an Omaha student, and Susan Darst Williams, a white parent in the Omaha metro area.

Here's a thoughtful blog about the law, with insight into what's driving Chambers and like-minded minority residents of Omaha.

As with the issues of charter schools and vouchers before this, in Nebraska disgust with decades of educational malpractice seems to be turning into a potent and unpredictable political force, one that finds minorities making common cause with conservative and rural interests to the befuddlement of mainstream observers.

There's nothing quite like the first days of daylight savings time to remind us that no matter how plugged in we get, how wired our homes and our lives, we've evolved in tune with the sun, moon and stars. It's hard to get up in the dark; hard to sit down to dinner while the sun is shining brightly. Near impossible, as a young child, to go to bed on a midsummer night before the sun has truly set.

On the other hand, we've gotten used to bulldozing our natural inclinations, in the service of school, work, physical fitness, TV, e-mail, etc. And the evidence is pretty clear that we're not doing a very good job helping our kids listen to their inner clocks.

The latest on the sleep front comes from KidsHealth, which just released the results of a survey of 1,187 children ages 9 to 13 across the U.S.

Turns out that an estimated 62% of kids ages 9-13 do not get enough sleep and 70% wish that they could get more sleep. Experts recommend that school-age children receive 9.5 to 10.5 hours of sleep each night. Many are barely logging 8 hours.

This doesn't just lead to kids who are unpleasant to have around. It leads to kids with lowered immune resistance to illness, kids who feel down and don't know why, kids who don't do as well as they could in school.

Another key finding: children who said their parents imposed a bedtime got an average of 45 minutes more sleep each night than those whose parents did not.

KidsHealth's advice is a good reminder that the venerable institution of bedtime is about more than giving grown-ups a kid-free hour at the end of the day, it's about safeguarding children's health.

An interesting note from research into a more extreme aspect of poor sleep: researchers have found strong evidence that a significant minority of children diagnosed with ADHD may have undiagnosed sleep disorders that can be alleviated by having their tonsils and adenoids surgically removed. As reported in the New York Times, the evidence indicates that in those cases, the ADHD symptoms can go away once the sleep disorder is eliminated.

Does anyone else remember learning "Basic" in grade school? I can't recall any details about it, except that x equalled just about everything, but what I do remember is that it was a powerful lesson in the extreme literal-mindedness of the computer "brain." Even the tiniest typo could result in a complete breakdown of the poor machine, a mini-version of that great scene in the Hepburn-Tracy comedy "Desk Set" when the fact-checking computer starts spewing cards and smoke.

A lot has changed since then, including our understanding of what kids need to learn about the technology that is changing our world. Programming, for instance, is now understood to be very much an elective, thank goodness.

Instead of telling computers what to do, students will increasingly be relying on computers to help them learn. Last week, Michigan took a step towards the cutting edge with legislation that requires every student in the state to take part in some form of online instruction before graduating from high school.

Supported by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the move is part of a broader effort to make high school graduation requirements tougher. Granholm hopes that "This new curriculum will help give Michigan the best-educated workforce int he nation", according to a report in eSchool News.

Michigan now becomes the place to watch for those interested in the promise of online education.