Zuck's Ed Tech Baby Goes With A Whimper

A new chapter in the long story of Summit Learning.

Summit Schools were an early entry (2003) into the world of charters, with founder Diane Tavenner trying to do personalized learning the low tech way. Tavenner was reportedly a former teacher, asst. principal and a graduate of the Broad Faux Academy of Superintendenty Stuff: she served as the board chair for the California Charter Schools Association, a board that includes Joe Williams, head of DFER as a member). 

Mark Zuckerberg, fresh off a disastrous attempt to finance an overhaul of New Jersey schools,  ran across the Bay area school in 2014 and decided that he would give it not just an infusion of cash, but an infusion of technology. Including engineering support to "make this better." Summit became one of Zuckerberg's pet projects, and it was also beloved by that other well-connected super-rich education amateur, Bill Gates, who has some of his Top People promoting hell out of it.

Summit handed off its "education. in a box" program to all sorts of schools (about 400 at its peak) and it was yet another experimennt in large scale education-via-screen. 

Many folks did not love it. . Take a look at some of the comments in this piece "The Inherent Racism of Summit 'Public' (Charter) School." And many schools have backed away from the Mass Customized Learning Program (a term that deserves a place on the oxymoron shelf right next to Jumbo Shrimp and Peacekeeper Missiles).

Indiana, Pennsylvania schools tried to quietly implement Summit programming, and parents began to squawk almost immediately. After just one month

parents began telling the school board that their kids were not adjusting to the new learning style, that they found questionable and objectionable material in the recommended online resources in their classes, and that their children were spending too much time in front of computer screens

NY Magazine just profiled Cheshire, Connecticut, another town that fought back when the mass customized learning program came to town (or rather, the town came to them, since the Summit model involves logging on to the Summit website). The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative had paid for the 130 Chromebooks needed, but once again, reality got in the way of CZI dreams.

Students rarely met with teachers, but instead had lots of screen time with a computer program that was reportedly easy to trick (just skip the lessons and go straight to the tests). The program still has glitches, including questions that cannot be answered correctly (maybe some nerdy programmer decided Summit needed its own Kobayashi Maru?) And there's the problem of the open-sourced playlists themselves:

Nothing about the platform said Silicon Valley more than the open-source approach to the “playlists.” Teachers were encouraged to customize them, to add and subtract — and Cheshire’s teachers were working on this, Superintendent Jeff Solan said in an email — but the base material was often just a bunch of links, to sites ranging from Kids Encyclopedia to SparkNotes to the BBC. I interviewed several educators who were involved in developing the platform in 2014, and when I mentioned this to one, he agreed they were “shoddy.” “We knew it,” he said. They were in such a hurry, he said, “we were just throwing things in there, that, at least from a Google search, looked reputable.”

Yikes. It's almost as if the actual education piece is secondary to some other part of the operation. I wonder what that could be...

And there was the question of data. Summit is clear about the 18 partners it shares its data with, and subjects itself to its own strong privacy agreements in addition to the legal protections around student data already in place, but parents and other locals were nonetheless concerned. “The Chromebooks were free. Nothing’s free. There’s always a reason,” said Mary Burnham, a retired educator who was part of the campaign against Summit. “If somebody’s giving you something free, chances are, they want something back, or they’re already getting something from it. As best I can tell, with Summit, it’s data.

Like the equally tech-heavy and success-light Altschool, Summit seemed to be one part market research and one part experiment on human lab rats, with the goal of finding proof of concept for computer-managed education. But mostly Altschool lost truckloads of money, and it eventually faded away into various other products and companies (Altitude Learning was one piece, apparently part of Guidepost Learning, another edu-prenuer undertaking that has since gone bankrupt). 

Traction was not happening for Summit, either. Chalkbeat found that 1 in 4 schools dropped the program by the 2018-19 school year.

In 2018, Summit spun the digital program off into a non-profit entity whose initial four-person board included Diane Tavenner, Summit founder; Priscilla Chan; and Peggy Alford, the CFO for CZI.It seemed suspiciously like a subsidiary of the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. The program was designed to follow what has now become the familiar model-- students getting their education from a compter-manab=ged algorithm while (low-cost) "coaches" provided some human oversight in the room. Maybe not so much oversight as "accountability sinks," because somebody has to be responsible when things go south. But Summit even went so far as to create its own special farm for training "facilitators."

The National Education Policy Center took a look at Summit's learning system, and found that it was a lot more hat than cowboy (and it was also extraordinarily reluctant to submit to any examination of their work or results). 

So in 2023, CZI (not really pretending it hadn't swallowed Summit whole) spun Summit off again, this time an outfit called Gradient, which the CZI blog said "we can help these important research-based resources more consistently reach students and educators, by focusing on coherence for educators." "Consistency" and "coherence" come up a lot in the history of Summit, because Zuck and his friends repeatedly concluded that the reason the computer-managed curriculum in a box wasn't working better and winning hearts and minds was that teachers were not implementing it faithfully enough. Damned mat widgets.

Gradient was yet another company whose promised whiz-bangery invokes the the "whole student" and a "unified learning platform," and while it can be hard to see through the smokey argle bargle, it sure looks like Trascend also wants to make computer-managed software-delivered education a thing. With a "dedicated coach." 

Gradient was going to have things chugging along by the 2024-2025 school year, but in Februarty 2026, Gradient announced its "next chapter,"

Expanding the scale and impact of this work is more important than ever. After much deliberation with our board, we are pleased to share that the future of the Gradient Learning program will move to a new home at Transcend, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting schools and systems to create extraordinary experiences and outcomes for all students. Transcend brings the expertise to take our program to the next level, as well as the ability to amplify a community of education innovators working for lasting change.

Transcend is about "model sharing" and "community innovation." They want to "reimagine educator roles" and their Leaps toward Extraordinary Learning for All is just the same old "school hasn't changed in a century" and educatyion should be relevant and a lot of nice words about what education should be like that nobody should disagree with, given that they offer nothing in the way of specific techniques that teachers should use. They jpin. a whole long line of edu-prenuers who offer pretty ideals about what education should be like without addressing any of the nuts and bolt specifics, which is where teachers live and do their work. Agency! High expectations! Rigor! Not one size fiots all! I have no evidence, but it is entirely possible that Transcend is actually headquarterd on a farm upstate, where tired old reform mcliches can run and play and are definitely not euthanized.

There is a certain symmetry to this story, however. I didn't follow up on the various team members of Transcend, so who knows-- maybe none of them were in Teach for America. The board is largely investment and business types. The CEO is Aylon Samouha, whose previous jobs include  Chief Schools Officer at Rocketship Education and several years as a Senior Vice President at Teach For America, and I feel compelled to note, lists jazz guitar as one of his pursuits, so God bless him for that.

But the kicker. The board has two lifetime members. One is Stacey Childress, former CEO of New Schools Venture Fund, and the other is Diane Tavenner, currently listed as CEO and Co-founder of her latest ventures, Futre.me.

These are the stories I think of every time some reformbro tries to argue that in the private sector, when you fail there are consequences-- not like in public education. Maybe. But it sure seems that in the private sector, the invisible hand doesn't cut failure loose so much as it just shuffles it around, to kick back and forth from one doomed enterprise to another. Will the ghost of Summit ever be laid to final rest? It may take decades to find out. 

Netflix Chief Ready To Help DFER Fix Education

Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) is delighted to announce that Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix, has joined their board, "bringing a disruptor's lens to education." That seems about right.

First, a reminder of who DFER really are. One of the key founders of DFER is Whitney Tilson, a big time hedge fund manager (you can read more about him here). Long ago, Leonie Haimson had a great quote from the film version of Tilson's magnum opus about ed reform, "A Right Denied," and it's a dream of mine that every time somebody searches for DFER on line, this quote comes up.

The real problem, politically, was not the Republican party, it was the Democratic party. So it dawned on us, over the course of six months or a year, that it had to be an inside job. The main obstacle to education reform was moving the Democratic party, and it had to be Democrats who did it, it had to be an inside job. So that was the thesis behind the organization. And the name – and the name was critical – we get a lot of flack for the name. You know, “Why are you Democrats for education reform? That’s very exclusionary. I mean, certainly there are Republicans in favor of education reform.” And we said, “We agree.” In fact, our natural allies, in many cases, are Republicans on this crusade, but the problem is not Republicans. We don’t need to convert the Republican party to our point of view…

DFER's mission has always been to convince Democrats that they should be backing ed reform ideas from the right. It's standard to find them trying hard to convince Democrats that it would be a winning strategy, like the recent NYT piece by their chief Jorge Elorza in which he tries to sell taxpayer-funded school vouchers.

Hastings, meanwhile, is a long time fan of school choice programs. Hastings has been plenty active in the charter sector, managing to help push through the California law that not only did away with charter caps, but made it possible to run a chain of charters with just one (unelected) board. Unelected is how he likes them-- in 2014 he told the California School Boards Association in fairly clear terms that elected school boards were a scourge and should be done away with.

Hastings likes to note that way back in the day, he was a teacher. That was with the Peace Corps in Swaziland over 40 years ago. But he's been a busy edu-preneur for decades, and he certainly knows all the classic bits.

There's the whole "unchanged classroom" shtick. Hastings sees schools as being like the entertainment biz thirty years ago-- "a model built for a different era" and has often claimed that "the traditional classroom model—one teacher, 20-to-50 students, sage-on-a-stage—is ripe for reinvention." He declares "the schools of the future won't look like the schools of the past," which is his one accurate observation, though he could easily note that the schools of the present don't look like the schools of the past. Lord, they were ushering the sage off the stage back when I was in teacher school. 

Paired with that is the claim that "Netflix replaced a one-size-fits-all broadcast model with something more personal and responsive," which is just a silly claim. In 1997, when Netflix launched, cable tv was achieving great new heights of variety. Hell, Fox News launched in 1996. Back then, boys and girls, cable provided actual variety before free market forces pushed cable channels to become barely distinguishable imitations of each other (you know, back when MTV played music and A&E stood for Arts and Entertainment, and there were two comedy channels). The broadcast model was already well and fully disrupted, and the only thing that Netflix disrupted was the practice of having to go to the store to rent DVDs. 

So guess what Hastings thinks is the key to this new shift in education? Here's a hint-- as of last year, Hastings is on the board of Anthropic, the big AI company.

"AI is a once-in-a-thousand-year shift, and what happens in K-12 is at the center of it,” Hastings continued. “The schools that figure out how to combine individualized software with teachers focused on social-emotional development are going to unlock something we’ve never seen before."

Individualized computer instruction is definitely a thing we've seen before, though what we've seen is the many ways that it crashes and burns and fails to deliver its many promises. There is no reason to believe that the newest iteration of the giant plagiarism machines is likely to change that, no reason to believe that education delivered through a screen is somehow superior to education involving other humans, both as teachers and as co-students. Hastings believes AI can help make education more personal, which highlights how oxymoronic it is to propose personalization that is delivered by non-persons. 

"He sees AI enabling a shift where teachers become more like coaches and build deep relationships with students."

Why does he see that? How does he see that happening? Could it be that replacing teachers with "coaches" solves that nasty labor problem with schools and helps make them more profitable? And yes, his description sounds very much like Alpha School, a ridiculous school model that is somehow beloved these days with its assertion that students can get a full education with two hours per day on computer. It's technoamnesia all over again, as folks just seem to forget that we have seen this model tried and failed. AI will make it better by... being more expensive, in every sense of the word?

Oh well. DFER and Hastings are just as dangerous to public education separately as they are together. May they have many lovely meetings together

The Great Screen Debate

Well, maybe not even a debate. More like a holding action.

Because the Chief Marital Officer (CMO) teaches elementary school and I spent decades teaching high school, we were clear from Day One that the Board of Directors would grow up with minimal screen exposure. They have always gotten a little bit of tv time (about 45 minutes a day, now that they're older) and always with a grownup watching along. A weekly family movie. No personal devices. Lots of reading, lots of books, lots of play (including being left to suffer the kind of boredom that births improvisational self-entertainment). 

Then it was time for school. And like the parents in Jackie Mader's Hechinger piece about ed tech pushback, we had to deal with new heavy exposure of the boys to screens. 

It was probably less of a shock to us because of our professional background. My high school went one-to-one with mini-laptops back in 2010, plunging us immediately into the many problems that come with such an ed tech initiative.

Ed tech is like every other kind of tech-- some of it is magnificently useful, some of it is a waste of time and money, some of it is crap, and some of it is dangerous crap. And being selective really matters. My high school used a program to gamify math for struggling students, and it was awful, particularly in the way that it would only accept a correct answer if it was typed in exactly the way the program wanted it (imagine a program that tells a student that 2x5=10 is correct, but 5x2=10 is incorrect). The Board of Directors have gotten much of their math instruction via a computer program (Reflex Math), and as much as it pains me, they seem to have actually learned well from it, buoyed up by the way the program lets them move on to the next thing the instant they are ready to go. 

I was a yearbook advisor who lived through the transition from paper layouts and photos to all-computerized desktop publishing and digital photography, and you could not have paid me a zillion dollars to step backwards. 

Too many districts have been unwilling or unable to ask the most basic questions when adopting ed tech ("Is this program junk?") and so students spend a lot of time in front of screens that are wasting time and providing zero educational benefit. That and the possibility of screen "addiction," with students hooked on the same sort of rushes that bring grown-ups back on line too often. 

And screens in school inevitably have a "leakage" problem. Students with a few extra minutes of screen time use it to surf Youtube or whatever else the school's filters won't stop. Cheap districts that use lower-level subscriptions expose students to resources that "leak" ads onto student eyeballs. The Board of Directors had never seen a video advertisement until they went to school, which seems... backwards somehow. 

Meanwhile, the ed tech is an ad. When it turned out that Google's education products are about "creating a pipeline of future users," no educators were surprised.

The last twenty-or-so years of ed tech were sold with the same sort of pitches that are now employed for new AI baloney. Don't let your students be left behind! This is the inevitable face of tomorrow and you want your students to be prepared! This tech will provide miraculous leaps in learning (just don't ask us for proof). 

Richard Culatta, CEO of ISTE+ASCD (motto: "Let us jam ed tech directly into your veins!") is in Mader's piece with the usual baloney

When kids hate learning because it’s boring, it will have far more damaging consequences than if they are playing a game that is helping them find learning more interesting

Sigh. No. First, you know who doesn't find something interesting just because it's pixels on a screen? People who have grown up in a world stuffed full of pixels on screens. Second, when you spend years around teenagers with phones, one thing you notice quickly is that a fascinating new app generally has a half-life of about four weeks. Culatta also trots out this old chestnut

We do have to be really careful that we don’t actually end up harming kids by taking away tools that are really helpful for them for their future

Nope. No student is going to lose ground in reading or math or history or art or music because she didn't have access to EduBlart3000 on her screen. 

And I myself once bought the idea that students could benefit from exposure to tech tools so that they were better able to use those tools in the future. I have changed my mind. First, the tools schools teach them to use now will be long gone in the future and second, we are well into the stage in which tech tools can be learned quickly. 

Lawmakers across the country are scaring the crap out of tech companies by contemplating restrictions on screens in schools. That new wave yielded this hilarious quote to NBC from Kieth Kruger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, an ed tech trade organization. 

I think some well-intentioned policymakers trying to do something are rushing so quickly that they haven’t thought through the implications.

Ironic, given that the ed tech industry's motto has always been "Buy our stuff RIGHT NOW and don't pause to think through the implications."

Well, the implications of years of screens in classrooms are starting to catch up with us. Check out Jared Cooney Horvath's set of graphs showing that the much-lamented dip in test scores seems to line up with digital adoption. Endless teacher anecdotes of students having trouble focusing, paying attention, just plain sticking with something for more than five minutes. Increasing numbers of studies suggesting that screens have hurt learning-- and (horrors) news that ed tech companies aren't making mountains of money! 

And yet, as Jennifer Berkshire points out, absolute amnesia about how we got here. Folks who cheerfully burbled about the promise of ed tech are now shocked-- shocked!!-- that screens have been allowed to dominate classrooms. Not a surprise-- as Audrey Watters has repeatedly pointed out over the years, the story of ed tech is the story of enthusiastic promises, joyous press coverage, and expensive failure, all wrapped in a blanket of sweet, sweet forgetfulness.

The amnesia would be funny if we weren't already being dragged into the next wave of ed tech, the one powered by "Artificial Intelligence," a marketing term designed to put a pretty, inevitable face on a morally bankrupt industry. "Come take a kick at this hot new ed tech idea! It's inevitable! It's awesome! This time it really will change everything!" 

We're still getting back up from the last faked kickoff. Here's hoping we think twice before we fall for this again. 

Three Problems of Big Standardized Testing

Of all the various Great Ideas launched at education in the past couple of decades, none have done more damage than the Big Standardized Test, a practice that has been in place now for a generation. So on top of the other harms done by test-driven accountability, the cherry on top is that a whole crop of newbie teachers has emerged thinking that test-centric schooling is natural and normal and how the U.S. education system has always worked. Meanwhile, we are just about to enter the season in which school staffs start creating cutesy videos and holding noisy pep rallies in an attempt to convince these tests are Important and students should Do Their Best. Yuck. 

The BS Tests have been a source of toxic waste in schools for years and years, and they have created this toxic effect in three distinct ways.

High stakes for a narrow measure

A single test is used as a broad measure of educational achievement. It claims to measures reading and math and nothing else, and yet it is repeatedly used as a measure of educational quality, students achievement, and teacher/school effectiveness. States have used BS Test results to label schools as "failing" which can have consequences ranging from a loss of funding to charterization to plain old reputational damage. 

Attaching high stakes to the test has led to a twisting and warping of curriculum, with course content and even courses themselves judged by just one metric-- is it on the Test? Science, history, the arts, even recess cut from schools so that extra work can be put into getting studennts to raise those scores, because the BS Test turns schools upside down. The school doesn't exist to serve students by giving them an education; students exist to serve the school by generating test scores. The upside down school effect is particularly notable in manuy charter schools, where the scores are an important marketing tool and so students who don't help make good numbers have to be "counseled out."

Meanwhile, test scores make an easy reference point for journalists, especially when combined with such prestidigidatation as "days/months/years of learning" which is just a fun mask to slap on the increase or decrease in test scores. Or soaking test scores in VAM sauce to make them seem as if they Really Mean Something. Or the transformation of scores into a kind of stock market, rising and falling as if they are waves of data flowing through a single medium, rather than representing the scores of different students.

But, hey. If the scores represent real measures of reading and math skills, isn't all of this justfied? Isn't it?

Lousy tests

Have the Big Standardized Tests been checked for validity and reliability? Do they measure what they purport to measure? Will they produce consistent results (iow, if the same student takes the test multiple times, will he get pretty much the same score every time)? 

The most likely answer is "Nobody knows for sure, but probably not." 

Multiple choice questions are about the weakest measure of knowledge and skill we have. But written answers create an assessment challenge that is almost insurmountable at that scale (and certainly insurmountable by any bots currently available). Also, a test needs to be created for a particular purpose, while the BS Tests are sold as being useful for multiple purposes. "We will sell you," say testing companies, "a piece of string that can be used to measure the circumference of a cloud and the amount of water in a swimming pool."

If we start with the number of skills that the BS Test claims to measure and multiply it by the number of items that it would probably take to measure those skills, we arrive at a test much larger than the actual tests. 

All of this gives us ample reason to suspect that the BS Tests are less-than-awesome assessment tools, suspicions that might be quelled by extensive test testing to show validity and reliability. Except that there doesn't seem to be any such test testing out there. Meanwhile, folks keep arguing that if teachers just teach the standards, the test results will take care of themselves, despite the fact that test results vary wildly from year to year for the same teacher.

But, hey. It generates some data, and even that sketchy data should be useful for something. Shouldn't it?

Tortured data

When a classroom teacher uses an assessment to evaluate learning and instruction, she can dig down to a granular level. Go question by question, checking student responses against the test items to see exactly where students are going wrong (or right). 

But the BS Tests are black boxes. Policy makers have accepted the notion that a test manufacturer's proprietary material is more important than useful data for schools, so teachers are forbidden to so much as look at the questions on the test, and the results that come back to schools (in too many cases, still after too many months) are rough summaries. For years, my results for student on the BS Test were broken down into "reading fiction" and "reading nonfiction," and that was it. 

Imagine you are a parent whose child brought home a C on a major reading test, and the teacher wouldn't let you see the test and wouldn't tell you what areas your child needed help with and what areas were your child's strength. In response to the question, "What can we do to help him," the teacher replied, "Just, you know, work on his reading." That is where teachers are with BS Test results. 

This tiny sliver of data is one of the reasons that schools take to carpet-bombing students with a host of broad, unfocused "interventions." It's also why we've seen the booming cottage industry of pre-test testing, with schools giving multiple tests throughout the year in an attempt to identify students who can be dragged to a higher score and to identify the areas in which interventions for these students might help. The actual BS Test doesn't give us the information we need, so maybe a few rounds of NWEA MAP testing will tell us what the BS Test won't (spoiler alert: it won't, in part because it's hard to predict how students will do on a test that isn't very reliable or valid).

So very little useful data gets back to teachers and schools. It is almost as if policy makers are only interested in generating pass-fail labels for schools and not in providing data that would actually help improve performance.

Solutions?

Policy makers could fix any one of these three factors. They could reduce the stakes attached to the BS Test, or combine test results with other measures of education. They could simply require the tests to be better, and they could certainly require test manufacturers to provide more useful data in a more timely fashion. In fact, in some states, policy makers have taken some baby steps. But it's not nearly enough.

Underneath all of this, there are philosophical questions to be answered, like how does one distinguish between good schools and bad, can you measure the difference, and if you can, is there any benefit to trying to slap "good" and "bad" labels on schools or teachers. But I don't recommend holding your breath while waiting for policy makers to have serious philosophical conversations about education in this country.

But in the meantime, high-stakes large-scale standardized testing continues to be one of the single most destructive factors in U.S. education. If you handed me a magic wand, it is the very first thing I would disappear. Barring that, it would be great if we could just do better.

ICYMI: The River Is Rising Edition (3/8)

The Institute's grounds back up against the river, and the waters are rising. It has been a combination of rising heat hitting a lot of snow, and a steady rain. The river never rises all at once, but slowly and steadily, as combined forces drive it slowly and steadily over its bank. It's a natural process; as it rises, the waters will sweep away the garbage, detritus, and goose poop that have accumulated on the banks. We root for the river to rise far enough to sweep the area clean.

Meanwhile, a varied assortment of education reading this week. Have at it. 

Don't Talk to Me About the Factory Model of Education

Dylan Kane takes on everyone's favorite counter-factual education talking point. 

Experts liken potential Supreme Court reversal of school funding rulings to overturning Roe v. Wade

Hyperbole? Maybe-- but the New Hampshire Supreme Court is taking a whack at the landmark Claremont decisions, another of those court decisions that tell a state it can't keep half-assing public education funding. But the NH GOP would really like to just half-ass public education funding, so here we are. Jeremy Margolis reports for the Concord Monitor.

A Backdoor School Voucher Scheme That Sidesteps Civil Rights and Undermines Public Oversight

At The Century Foundation, Kayla Patrick and Loredana Valtierra have produced an excellent explainer of the federal voucher program. Great for forwarding to that person who keeps insisting that the state ought to grab some of that free money.

State Law: Ohio's "Dropout Recovery" Charter Schools don't actually need to have any "dropouts". What they do need, though, is less accountability.

Stephen Dyer explains another charter school scam ripping off Ohio taxpayers. Saving dropouts? Not so much.

Nearly half of Ohio’s teachers say they may quit teaching; morale lags national average: Report

Speaking of Ohio, the new Ed Weeks survey suggests that Ohio excels in making teachers regret their career choices.

Zooming Out

Steve Nuzum explains what really drives all those book bans (spoiler alert: it is not deep concern for children).

The plot to replace teachers with tech

John Allen Wooden provides an absolutely blistering takedown of i-Ready.

Louisiana's 10 Commandments Law Marks a Critical Step Toward Christian Nationalism

Lorena O'Neil at Rolling Stone looks at 10 commandments laws in the context of rising Christian nationalism and its designs on schools.

Why Your School District Is Losing Its Leaders

Drew Perkins explains how the culture wars are driving leaders out of school districts.

The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment

The National Education Policy Center presents some research from Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza supporting what you already knew-- the constant attacks on public schools lead to policies that hurt those schools.

ProPublica Sues Education Department for Withholding Records About Discrimination in Schools

Good luck to them.

America’s teachers are working two jobs and barely getting by

CNN reports on a new survey that shows many teachers are having trouble getting by. In other news, sun expected to rise in East tomorrow. But Matt Egan does report some details and data.

Trump aims to shrink the Education Department — while Washington tightens its grip on schools

Matt Barnum captures the duality of this administration. On the one hand, they want to kill federal education oversight; on the other hand, they would like to micromanage local school policies that they don't like.

At least $7.2 million in taxpayer funds has been spent on LEGO sets through Arizona's school voucher program

Craig Harris ay 12News continues to dig deep and find out just how badly Arizona's taxpayer-funded voucher program is ripping off the taxpayers.

Florida Once Rewarded Academic Success. Now It Prorates It.

Sue Kingery Woltanski reports the latest Florida shenanigans, this time involving quietly cutting funds for a program that actually worked.

Ben Albritton’s priorities — rural spending and school voucher fixes — seem dead

Meanwhile, attempts to fix a system that can't even keep track of students will apparently stall once again.

The Backlash Against School Vouchers Is Showing Up at the Polls

Jennifer Berkshire continues to be a voice crying the wilderness that vouchers are a losing issue for elections, and maybe somebody ought to mention that in coverage.

"AI" is Yesterday's News

If you ever have a chance to hear Audrey Watters speak, do not pass it up. Here's a talk she gave to the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and it highlights, with humor and unexpected connections, the hollowness of the AI education promise.

About that School Trump Referred to in the State of the Union Address…

Nancy Bailey takes a look at Alpha School, a massive techno-scam that somehow keeps drawing glowing press.

A Simple Idea That Could Change Things for Kids: Child Impact Statements

Bruce Lesley has a great idea. Government will never adopt it--but they should.

Heritage Foundation Strategizes and State Legislatures Propose Laws to Deny Free Public Schools to Undocumented Children

Jan Resseger looks at the latest initiative from those big-hearted clowns at Heritage. One more court decision to overturn.

Test Scores Tell You Who Your Child Beat, Not What Your Child Knows

Akil Bello reacts to a recent Jill Barshay article chicken littling parental favoring of grades over Big Standardized Test results. It's a great critique of the grades vs. test scores debate.

No one wants to read your AI slop

Cory Doctorow on the habit of tagging in AI to rebut arguments. Worth it for this quote--"There simply is no substitute for learning about a subject and coming to understand it well enough to advance the subject, whether by contributing your own additions or by critiquing its flaws."

Former UM president Seth Bodnar officially launches campaign as independent vs. Daines

Montana's Senate race is turning out to be a complicated mess, but allow me to endorse this guy. He's a former student of mine and you won't find a better human being on the planet.

At the Bucks County Beacon, I reviewed a new plan-shaped report aimed at sort of fixing the problems of recruiting and retaining teachers. 

This is from the memorial concert for George Harrison. Lots of layers here, but the performance itself is quite a reading of the song.

Subscription is free. I don't want your money-- give it one of the other fine writers about education. But your subscription raises my numbers which in turn increases my visibility and gets the word out. 

School Voucher Math

To hear some voucher fans talk, they just want their own money back.

For instance, here's Julie Emerson, former legislator and now Louisiana Governor Jess Landry's chief of staff, explaining the LA GATOR taxpayer-funded voucher program.

It’s this basic principle of your tax dollars that you send to the government to educate your child, and we want you to have more flexibility in how those dollars are spent. You’re all sending your tax dollars to Baton Rouge, and you all want your child to be educated the best way that you see fit, and you would like to see those dollars follow your child into that education situation of choice, because every child learns differently.

Except that this is all a lie. Let's use Louisiana as an example.

According to tax-rates.org, the median property tax in Louisiana is $243 per year (that's on a house worth the median value of $135,400). Using census figures, worldpopulationreview.com figures the median property tax rate across all 64 counties is $732. If we go county by county, the lowest median property tax is $199 in West Carroll Parish and the top median rate is in Orleans Parish-- $2,428. 

For 2025-26, the GATOR program will provide the following amounts to families--

Up to $15,253 for IDEA students
$7,626 for students whose family have an income below 250% of federal poverty guidelines
$5,243 for other eligible students

The federal poverty guidelines say that 250% for a family of four is $80,375. 

So let's say Mr. and Mrs. Median live in a median home and pay $300 a year in property tax (I'm rounding up to make the math easier). Let's say they live in that house for fifty years. That's a grand total of $15,000 paid in taxes. Let's say they have two little median children. We'll even assume they are "other eligible." That means $5,243 per year per child for 13 years, or a grand total of $136,318. Even I do this math with the top median tax amount of $2,428 for fifty years, I get a total tax bill of 121,400. 

In other words, property tax costs do not cover the cost of vouchers. The voucher program is not simply letting taxpayers decide where their tax dollars go-- they also get to decide where their neighbors' tax dollars go. The only scenario in which this becomes true is a couple with a very expensive home and just one child. For all other parents, the more kids they have (and the more special needs those children have) the more necessary it is for "your tax dollars that you send to the government to educate your child" to be supplemented by your neighbors' tax dollars

This example was Louisiana, but the point holds true in virtually every voucher state. Voucher users are not simply getting to control their own tax dollars, but also the tax dollars of many, many other people.

Also, if we are going to adopt the legislative principle that taxpayers should get to decide exactly what their tax dollars are spent on, I have a few thoughts about my tax dollars and the US military. 

But that's not what's happening here. Voucher users are most definitely not just getting their own tax dollars handed back to them; they are getting to appropriate the dollars of many other taxpayers, whether those taxpayers like the idea or not. Arguments like Emerson's are dishonest, but too rarely called out. 

Teach For Awhile For America

Wendy Kopp, the woman who hatched Teach for America, popped up in The Atlantic with an odd reflection on "first jobs" and teaching, and, well, there's a lot of subtext to unpack. After "four decades trying to inspire young people... to work directly with low-income communities," Kopp has some thoughts.

She opens with the story of Jack, who was trying to decide whether or not to go the TFA route, and jumps from there to bigger ideas:

Policy makers and philanthropists aren’t particularly focused on first jobs. But these choices matter—and not only for the individuals beginning their careers. If we want to address society’s most deeply rooted challenges—poverty, polarization, environmental degradation, geopolitical conflict—we need to encourage young people to work on these issues early in their careers, so they can grow into leaders capable of solving them.

In other words, going into teaching as a "first job" doesn't really help anybody, but it gives TFA members the exposure to issues so that they can move on to leadership roles where they can actually accomplish something. You know-- real jobs where the real work gets done. 

This is in line with the longtime criticism of TFA that it's for rich white kids from elite universities to get an "experience" being briefly exposed to the poors.

It also points to the less-acknowledged problem of TFA. Plenty has been said about TFA's disrespect for career teachers ("Step aside, Grandma, and let me show you how we smart Ivy Leaguers get the job done") and the absurd condescension of insisting that a top college kid can pretty much master the work in a five week training. But over time it has become clear that a wider danger of TFA is that it keeps producing a bunch of reformster amateur edu-preneurs who go into business and government claiming to have been "in teaching" because they spent two years in a classroom somewhere. 

TFA has certainly produced some folks who became real teachers and embarked on real teaching careers-- which I guess would be a disappointment to Kopp, who was rooting for them to zip through their two-year first job so they could get on to important leaderly jobs of solving the world's problems.

Her story of Jack defies parody:

While teaching in Harlem, Jack saw that a lack of resources made failure seem inevitable for the kids at his school. He also saw the incredible resilience and character of the students, families, and teachers. He realized just how entrenched inequity in education is, but he gained confidence in his ability to help address it. Jack is now in his first year at Columbia Law School.

Yup. Jack went face to face with the challenges of poverty, saw what strengths were there, grabbed ahold of the problems of teaching in a low-resource classroom and decided-- to go to law school. But don't worry-- Kopp assures us that he "hopes to litigate for increased funding for education and better compliance with anti-discrimination and disability-rights laws."

But Kopp just can't stop. "Research confirms that working close to the roots of social issues early in one’s career fundamentally reshapes a person’s beliefs and life trajectory." And she connects some of that research to TFA, showing that yes, TFA is great because it provides an important formative experience for the TFA members. The actual students should, I guess, be happy to provide a useful learning experience for those college grads. It's almost as great as if someone provided learning for those students.

Kopp reminds us that her generation was known as the Me Generation. But offering a "prestigious alternative to the corporate track" those college grads proved to be more "idealistic and civically committed than people assumed." So the trick was, I guess, offering a prestigious alternative like TFA and not a non-prestigious alternative like an actual teaching career. 

Kopp comes real close to some insights here--

In 2024, 35 percent of Yale’s senior class entering the workforce chose jobs in finance and consulting; add tech into the mix, and the share rises to 46 percent. At other schools—including Harvard, Princeton, Claremont McKenna, and Vanderbilt—at least half of the graduating class moved into those three fields. Meanwhile, the data I’ve seen on the share of students taking jobs close to inequity and injustice suggest a decline across the same period.

Ah, but Wendy-- those graduates going into those fields are taking jobs close to inequity and injustice. They're just close to the winning side of those issues.  

Some students, of course, feel they can’t afford to pursue less immediately lucrative careers. But if this was all that was holding graduates back, you’d expect to see more kids from wealthy backgrounds taking these jobs. Yet students from the highest-income backgrounds are the least likely to enter into public service and the most likely to pursue the corporate path.

Huh. Rich people don't want to help poor people, and don't even want to be around them? I feel like there's a really deep vein to be tapped here, but Kopp isn't going there.

Kopp points out that the corporate track has a well-funded recruitment arm and that colleges are eager to hoover up some of that money in a sort of collegiate product placement. 

Kopp also sees an opportunity in the AI onslaught. Maybe, since AI is going to do all the entry level jobs, companies could "push back their recruiting timelines" while grads go out and get some human skill jobs, in communities tackling social problems. Not, mind you, that she thinks the grads should stay in that first job:

And young people themselves, even those who might want to run a major company someday, would benefit immensely from devoting the early years of their careers to such challenges.

Get those humaning skills, then move on to your real job.

There are so many blind spots in Kopp's essay, like her observation that "High schools should inspire students to step outside of their comfort zone and wrestle with pressing social issues," as if there are thousands of high schools where the students wrestle with pressing social issues every single day. Philips Exeter Academy is not a typical high school.

But mostly is this whole notion that the direct social work of the world should be done by fresh-faced college grads who only stay for a couple of years before they go on to the real lifetime work of, perhaps, amassing money or political power by occasionally remembering the social issues that they observed up close for a brief time. What does a school system look like when it is staffed mainly by people who never stay long enough to actually get good at the work of teaching? And are those people really fit "experts" to lead the world of education policy? 

Takes me back to two classics from The Onion-- the point/counterpoint "My Year Volunteering As A Teacher Helped Educate A New Generation Of Underprivileged Kids vs. Can We Please, Just Once, Have A Real Teacher" and "Teach For America Celebrates 3 Decades Of Helping Recent Graduates Pad Out Law School Applications." I'm going to reread those now to get the taste of Kopp's ideas out of my head.