Dollars And Cents And AI And Sense

A few weeks back, I wrote a piece for the Bucks County Beacon in which I suggested some questions that you should ask your local district when they start making noises about incorporating AI into your district's schools. But I realized afterwards that I left a big question out, so I'd like to amend that earlier piece right here. 

How committed is your district to paying the actual price?

This hit me in the midst of one of those on line conversations in which a journalist tried to explain that she doesn't use AI for, you know, the important parts of the writing, but just for things like research and fact-checking and proof-reading and editing. I suggested that this seemed like a bad idea, that AI was not particularly good at any of those things, and then I heard, from many posters, a new counter-argument.

I'm thinking of 2023 AI. The new, advanced super-duper bots are so much better. I needed to get my head out of the old, free bots.

The AI that just anyone can use, they seemed to be admitting, is inadequate. You have to step up to get the good stuff.

Now, I'm inclined to disbelieve assertions that newer, better AI can do human thinky stuff. But let's pretend the newer better AI is really newer and better in ways that matter. 

This is, of course, a well-established computer tech model. You can have the free version, but it's, you know, broken. Here's a cool new app that will only work, sort of, for the 90 minute trial period. Here's a game that is really an ad delivery system. Here's photo editing software with no features. 

It's a relatively new invention, this model. It used to be unimaginable that a dealership would sell you a new car that had some cool features that are broken until you pay extra to unlock them. Imagine buying a house and then discovering that none of the doors actually work (unless you hire some carpenters to come in and fix them). 

Or, in a school setting, imagine buying a new set of textbooks, then discovering upon delivery that they are all missing several chapters, which you can purchase from the publisher for an extra fee. 

So here's what you need to know from your district. When the super-cool features that sold your superintendent or tech procurement committee on this AI whiz-bangery in the first place, is your district committed to paying the new fees. When the teachers who are supposed to actually use this AI tool discover that real utility comes with an extra cost, will the district cough up the money? Or is the district's expectation that teachers will somehow make use of a piece of broken software?

Or will wealthy districts get the fully unlocked programs, while poorer districts will have to limp along with the demo model? 

And when this year's model is supplanted by next year's hot new thing, will the district be committing to throwing more money at it? And what other funding will they cut in the district to get the money to feed their new AI habit? Because once FOMO gets in your blood, it's hard to kick the habit, and you can bet that vendors will keep right on warning that schools dare not get left behind by the newest inevitable shiny thing of tomorrow.

So that's the other question to ask your district when they start gazing longingly at AI-- just how far are they willing to go, and do they intend to keep shoveling money into the program, or will they ask teachers to get on the cutting edge with the broken version of last-year's already-cooling-off Hot New Thing.

Mind you, that's not the only question to ask (there are more here), but you cannot get a real answer to "What do we expect to actually get out of this, and is it worth the cost" if you don't take an honest look at the cost. Because whatever your district thinks the cost is, it's way more than that. 

ICYMI: Spring Arrives Edition (4/12)

Spring does not officially arrive in Northwest Pennsylvania until we've had at least one snow after Easter, and this year that milestone arrived quickly. So now we're into the days of Spring, when one needs a coat in the morning and shorts in the afternoon and an umbrella and mud shoes all the time. Not my favorite season, but it has its charms. 

Here's some reading for the week. If you do not do so already, consider subscribing to some of these folks. 

Inside the Latest MAGA Attack on Undocumented Children in Public Schools

Josh Cowen takes a look at Stephen Miller and his targeting immigrant children as a way to punish them and their parents, because Stephen Miller just does not want those brown people around here. What a miserable man.

Old Dog, Old Tricks

Teacher Kate Roberts with a wonderfully eloquent argument for remembering and humanity.

If Astronauts Can Attend Public Schools. . .

Dear Bubbie reminds us about the connections between astronauts and our public schools, and the threats to those schools (particularly in Florida).

DeSantis signs Florida law to label groups as terrorists and expel student supporters

You may remember when Florida tried to declare the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. Then a federal judge told them to knock it off. So now DeSantis and company have passed as new law that lets them call anyone a terrorist supporter they want to, and throw students out of the state. The AP has the story.

When a teacher ditched screens, class got harder. That may be why it worked.

Bookmark this piece by Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat. A teacher got rid of his computer assistance, and it made his job harder--but it worked better. Almost like speed, efficiency and ease are not critical needs for educational achievement.

Schools across America are quietly admitting that screens in classrooms made students worse off and are reversing years of tech-first policies

Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez at Fortune with the story of ed tech regret.

It’s Not about Cheating

Nancy Flanagan explains-- it's not about the cheating, but about the learning.

Primavera Online Charter School avoids shutdown for abysmal grades after State Superintendent Tom Horne steps in for multi-millionaire owner

The fairy tale that free market forces will provide accountability and excellence in the school choice world takes yet another hit. Turns out if you are a billionaire donor in Arizona, you can get an official to run interference for your crappy cyber-charter. Craig Harris at 12News continues to do exceptional work.

The Federal Voucher Program Is a Costly Illusion

Denise Forte at EdTrust explains why the federal voucher program is a snare and a delusion. Share this with your friend who keeps asking about the free federal money.

Legislators Imagine that Teaching the “Success Sequence” in Schools Will Stamp Out Poverty

Some legislators just can't fall out of love with the Success Sequence (aka "if you're poor it's because you made bad choices") and in Ohio, they'd like to make it mandatory teaching in public schools. Jan Resseger explains why that's not such a great idea.

Earlier ADHD diagnosis linked to better education

Not sure there's a big surprise here, but this study from Finland is worth noting. Johnathan Kantrowitz explains what they found.

Robert Sweet’s Early Influence on The Science of Reading

Nancy Bailey with a valuable explainer of one of the early influencers on the "science of reading." Along with a whole bunch of other folks who weren't reading teachers, either.

The Mississippi Reading Reform Multiverse (And Lessons Ignored)

Paul Thomas responds to yet another attempt to lionize the Mississippi not-exactly-a-miracle.

And I Would Have Gotten Away With It Too If It Weren't For Those Pesky Kids

Audrey Watters looks at the Matt Barnum piece about Sal Khan and his failed revolution.

I Don’t Want to Be Teacher of the Year

Matt Brady on why some of the folks doing the best work are not going to be winning the awards.

Billionaire Thinking Has Harmed Public Schools

Thomas Ultican on science, edtech, rich amateurs, and the freedom to teach. 

Scientists invented a fake disease. AI told people it was real

A case study in how swiftly and easily AI can pollute the information ecosystem. Christ Stokel-Walker writing for Nature. 

This week at Forbes.com, I wrote about a Louisiana court case that ended up okaying a charter school's power to discriminate against students with special needs. 

I am not generally a fan of folks showing off their kids on youtube, but this classic is just so sweet, and the father so centered on the child. They had just watched fireworks, the story goes, which is why she keeps stopping, just in case. And this song was built for ukelele. 

Subscribing to my newsletter is free, and always will be.

Sal Khan Still Clueless

Matt Barnum's piece for Chalkbeat in which Sal Khan unsuccessfully reflects on his latest education misfire, has opened the door for plenty of folks to take a swipe at Khan and his consistently bad ideas, but lordy, the man deserves all of it. Probably only Bill Gates has managed to be so consistently wrong about education and yet so often hailed as a visionary thought-leading wizard of golly-whiz-bangery. 

Khan deserves to be examined and dissected every time he pokes his head out, because he so consistently embodies what the Ed Tech Overlords get wrong, over and over and over and over and over again.

Sometimes he gets so close. Early on, Barnum offers this quote about the flop of Khanmigo, the Khan Academy chatbot that was supposed to be a tutor:

“For a lot of students, it was a non-event,” Khan told me recently about his eponymous chatbot, Khanmigo. “They just didn’t use it much.”

Good first step. Lord knows that lots of ed tech salesmen didn't even get this far in looking at the fate of their shiny product. But Khan can't get to the crucial next step, which is to make a serious inquiry into why his targeted customers didn't want to use his product.

Barnum, God bless him, knows the issues here:

Khan’s comments are an acknowledgement that AI has not quickly allowed for the creation of an effective super-tutor, as some initially hoped. It’s an early indication of the limits of AI to drive massive learning gains, long an unrealized goal of various technologies. While Khan remains optimistic about various uses of AI in education, he’s also come to see its limits.

But rather than examine the question, or the assumptions behind his use case, Khan indulges in another classic ed tech behavior-- moving the goalposts.

“I just view it as part of the solution; I don’t view it as the end-all and be-all,” says Khan, the guy who literally wrote a book about how AI "will revolutionize education" thereby being a be-all and end-all. 

It is, as Audrey Watters has laid out a zillion times, fundamental to ed tech wizardry to be fully ignorant of the history of failed ed tech. Khan launched Khanmigo citing Benjamin Bloom's 1984 essay about "Two Sigma" tutoring, a magical kind of tutoring that would leapfrog student learning, except that folks like Khan who like to trot this out don't seem to have looked at it very carefully. Education Next ran a new piece by Paul T. von Hippel breaks it down effectively. I recommend it as an antidote to folks trying to sell you 2 Sigma tutoring, but here are just a few facts about the article that Khan skimmed over. The chart that Khan and others like to use to illustrate Bloom's "findings" is not an illustration of actual data, but Bloom's hard-drawn illustration of "this is what it would look like." The actual data comes from work of two grad students who worked with a small number of subjects, tutoring them to prepare for a very narrow, specific test. Oh-- and the tutors were humans. 

But ed tech whiz guys don't just ignore the past. They also are committed to ignoring evidence from the present. It was Barnum who went back to one of the early adopters of Khanmigo to see how that was going. It's not. She found "that students didn't really care for the bot" and that "If students don’t engage with the material enough to know what they’re looking for, then an AI like Khanmigo doesn’t necessarily help." In a really key observation, she notes that "there's more enthusiasm for the product among administrators than teachers."

When ed tech overlords do encounter evidence that their shiny thing is not working out well, they inevitably fall back on one of two explanations. Kristin DiCerbo is the Chief Learning Officer for Khan with zero hours in a classroom-- she worked two years as an elementary school psychologist, then worked for Cisco, Pearson, and now Khan Academy. She explains to Barnum that Khanmigo can only respond to what students ask, and students are bad at asking questions. This time, nobody tried to blame teachers as well. This is the ed tech pitch since the dawn of time-- "This tool is great, but you need to change yourself to fit how it works rather than expecting it to fit the way you work." We have redesigned hammers, and these will be great hammers if carpenters will just replace their hands with spiral bungee cords.

Khan is disappointed that students don't seek out more help from Khanmigo, but doesn't seem to reach the obvious conclusion that students do not find it useful, and so cannot move on to the question, "How could we make this more useful?" Instead, they are just going to try force feeding Khanmigo to students by incorporating it in Khan Academy. It's the same AI business model that keeps shoving AI into every app and software that we use, like someone who thinks that if they keep setting pieces of cold liver all around the house in hopes that the kids will finally pick it up and eat it and love it. 

Ignorant of the past, ignoring the present, and dedicated to making the products they want to make first and trying to figure out what use the product could be to actual humans second-- it's the same old ed tech hustle, even for the rich and famous. 

Federal Science of Reading Bill?

Oh, that crazy House of Representatives.

Check out HR 7890, brought to us by Rep. Erin Houchin of Indiana, along with Rep. John Manion of New York and Rep. Kevin Kiley of California. The bill-- The Science of Reading Act-- wants to federally mandate Science of Reading stuff. It has the effect of creating a federal definition of SoR that captures the general vagueness of the term:

The term ‘science of reading’ means an interdisciplinary body of evidence-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing that—

(A) identifies instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing as essential components to skilled reading;

(B) demonstrates the importance of background knowledge, oral language, the connection between reading and writing, and strong writing instruction;

(C) explains why some students have difficulty with reading and writing; and

(D) does not use a three-cueing model.

Hope that clears it right up for you. If you're fuzzy on three-cueing, we get a federal definition for that, too. It has to do with A) using context, pictures, or syntax as primary basis for teaching word recognition and B) "teaches visual memory as the primary basis for word recognition." So, sight words? Sight words are bad now? 

Anyway, under the bill, only programs that are aligned with SoR get grant money under the grants to "entities in support of kindergarten through grade 12 literacy," The bill would add to the directions that states are given for distributing the grants. Which makes me wonder if these GOP Representatives missed the meeting where the regime explained that these kinds of grants were going to be toast anyway.

That's pretty much the whole bill, other than it's not allowed to limit any of the protections of students under IDEA or the ADA. The best part is at the very bottom of the page where the bill explicitly says that the bill absolutely does not

authorize any officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or program of instruction.

Somebody was wrapping up the bill and remembered that the feds are not allowed to dictate curriculum or instructional programs. Conservatives remembered that really well back when President Obama and Arne Duncan were extorting state compliance with promoting Common Core, but seem to have kind of forgotten now.

So that's the bill. It directs states to push a particular ill-defined un-supported possibly-nonexistent instructional methodology, and then promises that this bill does not authorize the feds to push a particular instructional methodology. It went to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, where the committee voted 33-0 to report the bill. Should this bill escape its well-deserved death, I expect its major effect will be to influence education grant paperwork, but let's hope it just sits on the steps up on Capitol Hill and quietly fades away. 

AP Promotes Moms For Liberty Myth

The headline was sandpaper on nerve endings. "Moms for Liberty wanted a seat on the school board. Trump gave them a voice in the White House." All the more annoying because this was the Associated Damn Press, who should know better than to uncritically echo the M4L mythology.

To be clear, an influential voice in politics on the state and national level has always been what M4L wanted. As with much of the culture panic crowd, "fighting to win school board seats and end 'wokeness' in U.S. schools" were useful goals for activating some folks, but the AP's summary of M4L-- "what started as a fringe of far-right mothers"-- misses the core of the story.

The oft-repeated myth  is that a couple of Florida moms sat a kitchen table in January of 2021 and decided they'd sell start a group to complain about COVID school stuff. Heck, these Just Plain Moms could even raise money selling t-shirts. This is a lovely story. It is not true.

By 2021, these moms were already well-connected political activists in the state. In 2015, future M4L co-founder Bridget Ziegler co-founded the Florida Coalition of School Board Members, a pro-voucher alternative to the Florida School Board Association. The founders included Erika Donalds, a former New York investment banker turned Florida Tea Partier, now a high-powered choice advocate in Florida who is CEO of her own charter school company and married to Byron Donalds, rising MAGA star. 

Other folks who would join in leading FCSBM included Anne Corcoran, wife of Florida’s pro-privatization legislator-turned-Education Commissioner-turned chief of New College; Rebecca Negron, the wife of the state senator who helped write the tax credit scholarship voucher bill; and Eric Robinson, former GOP party chair and sometimes called “The Prince of Dark Money.” And also future M4L co-founder Tina Descovich, who was elected to Brevard County School Board with a signature issue of her opposition to Common Core. Descovich ran on two decades in business and a degree in Communications, as well as serving on the executive staff of a US Army Commanding General. Soon after joining the group, Descovich was its president.

FCSBM operated for a few years, giving out awards and working legislative connections as it ”consistently fought above its weight” to win “key battles on school choice, charters and other hot-button education issues.” But the group ran out of steam, and in May of 2020, Descovich and Ziegler filed for voluntary dissolution of FCSBM.

At that point, Ziegler and Descovich were experienced and well-connected political operatives who had been working at anti-public ed advocacy for years. And they were looking for a new angle. On December 10, Descovich and new MFL founder Tiffany Justice were posting about the launch of the new group; Descovich even had a picture of thirteen women already wearing the group’s t-shirt and displaying their logo.

The speed with which the group launched was impressive. They claimed fundraising by selling t-shirts on Facebook, but that would not begin to account for receipts of a half a million dollars in their first year.

Maurice Cunningham, author of Dark Money and the Politics of School Privatization, has been hollering into the void for years, tracked the many benefits that M4L enjoyed on launch. By the end of the January, they had appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show; soon they moved on to score appearances or shout outs from Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and Steve Bannon’s War Room. They threw some massive fundraisers and Cunningham's research found connections to Heritage Foundation, the Leadership Institute, and the Council for National Policy. The group's media and political profile erupted quickly.

Bridget Ziegler's husband Christian, a political operative with a PR firm and great prospects in Florida GOP leadership, told the Washington Post that he has been “trying for 20- and 30-year old females involved with the Republican Party, and it was a heavy lift to get that demographic. But now Moms for Liberty has done it for me.” 

That was in October of 2021, at which point Bridget's involvement had been retroactively deleted from the M4L origin story (this was a few years before the Zieglers ran into trouble for trolling bars for three-way partners).

M4L showed their interest in being national political players from the start, throwing weight behind Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and inviting big political names to their various conventions (instead of, say, educational experts). They had a brief bump on the local level, followed by a whole lot of people realizing they had better pay closer attention to what kinds of radicals were running for school board. But as their local school board fortunes waned, M4L's national leadership shrugged and moved on, almost as if those contests weren't really the main thing.

These days Ziegler is still making waves at the Sarasota school board. Tiffany Justice landed a cushy job with the Heritage Foundation-- and lost it after just seven months. But she was there long enough to tell ProPublica, “If America’s public schools cease to exist tomorrow, America would be a better place.” Descovich has landed in DC, connected to the current regime and serving solo as M4L CEO. She's the subject of Collin Binkley's interview for the AP.

Binkley spoke to Seth Levi at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the folks who labeled M4L as "extremist." Levi said that M4L "are more interested in platforming extremist voices and policies rather than listening to the American people." And he did speak to Cunningham, who notes that the group is more about political advocacy rather than parental input. “They’re in the White House, there’s no question,” he said. “But they are there as a voice of the organized institutional right wing.” 

And look-- if folks want to throw their weight behind the regime decide to get politically active, that's their right. M4L certainly illustrated one principle-- if you can get people all worked up about a local issue (naughty books in the school library!!) you can get them to the polls in ways that might be helpful. 

But it is frustrating to see media repeatedly go along with the momwashing of these seasoned, well-connected, political operatives, writing about them as if they just sort of fell onto the national political stage rather than getting there through working connections, hoovering up truckloads of money, and calculating the angles. Nobody is writing pieces about Stephen Miller describing him as just a dad who wanted to get involved writing about issues for his college newspaper and now, golly gosh, here he is in the White House!

There is one piece of Binkley's piece that is worth noting. Commenting on the recent M4L lobby-your-congressperson day at the capitol, Descovich offered this:

“We’re not really doing any lobbying for any specific bills at the federal level yet,” Descovich said. “That will come next year.”

 No mention of whether they'll be selling more t-shirts to fund this effort. 

AFC Names Head Of Cash Grab Division

Betsy DeVos's old crew is ready to cash in on federal school vouchers.

The American Federation for Children was organized and funded by the DeVos family. It has had a variety of names, including American Education Reform Foundation and Advocates for School Choice, Inc, and has suckled up some other DeVos initiatives like "All Children Matter," a group that was fined for election misconduct in Ohio and Wisconsin. But they settled on American Federation for Children because that is meant to contrast with American Federation of Teachers (because teachers are, as we know, notoriously anti-child). 

Their leadership is a clue to their mission. Betsy DeVos gave up her chairman of the board spot to go work for Trump. These days the chair is William E. Oberndorfer, who co-founded the Alliance for School Choice, one of the root organizations of AFC with John Walton and has his own foundation that is busy pumping up charters and groups like Jeanne Allen's Center for Education reform and Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education and EdChoice (formerly the Friedman Foundation).

The board also includes John Kirtley (Florida School Choice Fund, Florida Charter Institute), Kevin Chavous (DFER, New Orleans voucher plan, K12), Ann Duplessis (former LA legislator and banker), Stack Hock (investment banking and Texas Public Policy Foundation), Edward McDermott (investment firm and BASIC Fund, a California SGO), and Hera Varmah (Step Up For Students). It's a crowd that is even more interested in managing money than in privatizing education. 

AFC has already announced its intention to get in the ground floor of the federal taxpayer-funded school vouchers. The vouchers created under Dear Leader's Big Beautiful Bill are the tax credit scholarship flavor, and as with all such vouchers, there's a middle man. Taxpayers give their completely deductible contribution to a Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) that in turn passes the money on to students.

But not before they skim off a slice for themselves. The federal plan is still sparse on details, but typically an SGO keeps 5-10% of the money it handles. So lots of folks are getting into the SGO biz, and that includes AFC.

They have announced the man they've hired to run that skimmer for them-- Sean Clifford. They announced:

In his new role, Sean will serve as our primary ambassador and strategist for the scholarship fund, overseeing strategic direction, growth strategy, and partnerships, along with managing the day-to-day operations necessary to ensure the Education Freedom Tax Credit reaches as many families as possible, as soon as possible.

Clifford has been around a few blocks. After interning with the Bush II Council of Economic Advisors, he spent seven years as VP of Baron Public Affairs, a DC PR form that handles clients at "the nexus of politics and business" thereby "liberating innovators from political risk." He went back to school at Wharton for an MBA, then went to Texas for a year at Skills Fund (now Ascent, an education loan outfit). Then in 2018 he founded and led Canopy, the school internet filter company. Then he became an advisor at MonCap, an investment firm, and Chief Strategy Officer at Tikvah, a nonprofit firm that advances "Jewish excellence and Western Civilization through education and ideas." Eliot Abrams is currently chairman of their board of trustees. 

So that's the background Clifford brings to running the AFC Scholarship Fund. 

In an interview, AFC chief Tommy Schultz explained what the fund will be about. The program will "free up billions of dollars," Schultz says. Frees from what? Being captured by the feds, I guess. He's going to keep pushing the notion that this will give students "access to a better education," which is the central lie of the whole program. Because first, there is no reason to believe that vouchers lead to better education, and lots of reasons to believe that they don't. Second, vouchers systems make sure that private schools retain the right to discriminate against LGBTQ persons, students with the "wrong" religious faith, students who have academic issues, students with special needs, and any students the school just doesn't want to accept for whatever reason. Laws are written to deliberately preserve that power to discriminate.

Schultz notes that "the beauty and elegance" of this new voucher dodge is that it's a change to the tax code, and not, say, a piece of education policy with oversight and accountability attached. "There won't be any nefarious Department of Education strings attached to it." No accountability. No oversight. No rules.

"We are very much invested in making sure that millions of kids can get access to the best education possible..." says Schultz, which is a hell of a hard thing to assert if your program is not going to include any quality control measures at all--will, in fact, include anti-quality control measures. And be run by a guy who does not have the education background to spot the difference between excellence, mediocrity, malpractice, and scammery. 

But AFC could make bank. They anticipate billions of dollars going into the new SGO systems, and 5% of even a measly one billion is still fifty million. That's a tidy bonus to get when you're pursuing your goal of dismantling public education. 

OH: No More Crossdressing in Front of the Kids

There's has been some social media noise about Ohio's new bill that supposedly criminalizes any kind of behavior that conflicts with your "gender at birth." Maybe. Supporters and the bill's actual language say that HB 249 only makes it illegal to act outside your traditional gender role in front of children. Critics argue that the language is so broad it will eventually squelch every day gender expression. 

The bill updates existing Indecent Exposure laws, and in particular adds a definition of "adult cabaret performance" meaning specifically a performance that is "in a location other than an adult cabaret where minors may be present, that is harmful to juveniles or obscene, regardless of whether or not the performance is for consideration..."

That is followed by a list of specific no-nos, including strippers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and topless dancers. And then, over above the list of ways that naughty ladies can display their private bits, we get this additional example of an adult cabaret performance:

Performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer's or entertainer's biological sex using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers;

This is nuts. Now, as I read the law, this doesn't make it illegal to simply be a man wearing heavy makeup while walking down the street or holding high federal office. To trigger this law, you have to be a man heavily made up while performing or entertaining (okay, maybe that high federal office example is in jeopardy after all).

Soooo many problems here. Exactly who will be serving in the new Ohio State Bureau of Acceptable Gender Role Markers? Can a lady singer wear pants? How much make-up can a vice-president man wear and still be legal? Can I show a class Some Like it Hot? What determines whether a t-shirt is male- or female-coded? If a male entertainer uses a high-pitched voice in front of a juvenile audience, is that a violation? I mean, as a life-long bass I harbor a little resentment towards tenors, but this seems like bridge too far.

And if these all seem like extreme cases, let me suggest that you ask a high school teacher how many times they have witnessed a hilarious student skit in which high school boys performed and/or danced dressed like girls (perhaps with some balloon "prosthetics"). The answer is, at least for me, "I lost count ages ago." You can argue that this is obviously just harmless youthy high jinks and surely nobody would seriously consider that illegal. The law was just intended to protect youths from the evils of drag queens, and surely nobody would go after the senior football players in the annual homecoming assembly talent show. But we currently have a whole anti-school-outrage-industrial complex, like the (formerly Parents) Defending Education crew whose whole mission is to try to literally make a federal case out of everything they can find in their karen-fed pipeline of Naughty Behavior in public schools. If this bill passes the Senate (the House has already okayed it) I guarantee that sooner or later you will see a story about some public school dragged into court because it allowed the captain of the basketball team to dress up as a cheerleader in front of the whole student body.

The new law would piggyback on the current state obscenity laws, which are an exercise in vagueness.

"Biological sex" is doing heavy lifting here, defined as indicated by "sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth," and deliberately ruling out any individual's psychological or subjective experience, all of which fits an imaginary world in which gender is simple and cut and dried. However, our world is not that world.

This is one of those laws where someone wanted to stop a "problem" that is so minute and undetectable that they decided to just carpet bomb the entire are either because A) they are lousy at writing laws or B) they were happy to get as much collateral damage as possible. Ohio faces many problems these days; none of them are caused by drag queens. 

You can read ACLU Ohio's full response here, or this handy explainer. If you're in Ohio, you might want to get ahold of your Senator and encourage them to spend more time on actual problems. In the meantime, certain elected officials might want to be careful about appearing in the state.