Can We Have a Nonpolitical Patriotic Moment?

We have done all the usual Independence Day things in my community. We had a parade, and last night the town band I play in delivered our usual pre-Fourth concert in the park featuring mostly marches, a salute to veterans of all service branches, Stars and Striped Forever, and the Carmen Dragon America the Beautiful.  

Attendance was down for most events. I have no idea why, though a crowded local calendar and punishing heat are undoubtedly factors. There's been noise about the lack of enthusiasm about the 250th, and as someone who well remembers the Bicentennial, I agree that the excitement level is far lower. However, as a student of history, I can also tell you that the 150th in 1926 was no great shakes, either. 

Who knows. 1976 was a moment in which the nation was bruised and recovering, looking for a reason to celebrate that after a lot of testing of our institutions and character, maybe we could focus on what was great about the nation. Right now we're in the middle of the newest test, and celebration may seem premature. Maybe it's because much of the national celebration has been hijacked for a MAGA rally. Maybe corporations are now so multi-national that throwing business weight behind a celebration doesn't make sense to them. Who knows.

Look, our country is a complex mess, and it always has been. The Founders were a fractious that agreed on very little. The actual war effort was a slog because some states refused to help pay and many, many men refused to join the fight (some by not signing up and some by running away as soon as bullets started flying). The Constitution was a second attempt, and it's partly because some states stayed home and had a hissy fit that the thing even got across the finish line. We are a democratic nation that has always included citizens that don't believe in democracy, just as we have always housed--right through today-- a bunch of folks who vigorously reject the Declaration's assertion that all men are created equal. We set up a collection of ideals around which to center a country, and we have spent 250 years arguing about how or if to try to live up to them.

But the ideals part matters, because that's a different animal than centering a single human leader. When you have Dear Leader in charge, people are measured not by competence or merit, but by loyalty. We are currently living through the demonstration of what you get with government built on loyal dopes. 

We are also living with the illusion that everything is politics. It's not too complicated-- when Dear Leader has an opinion about everything, then every opposing opinion is painted as politics. And really, there's a whole class of politics-oriented folks who also think that everything is politics.

It is true that for some folks, politics has shaped the context that they move through. But that doesn't mean they have to live their every waking moment maneuvering with politics and power. If we had remembered that, we could have had a nice party for the 250th. Instead, so much is polluted with politics and the related impulse that we will not be able to leave a good life until Political Goal X is achieved. 

But the saturation of politics also matters because our current moment in politics is mostly negative. The easy way to get people to donate is to point at something and holler that it's a threat. You can hear the desperate grasp for another Big Scary Thing in Trump's address yesterday trying to get us all excited about scary communists. Meanwhile, my inbox is filled with people who really need my money to combat the threat of MAGA. 

Some days you would think we lived in the scariest damned country in the world, and while I think that's problematic for many reasons, I do worry that we are passing it on to another generation, raising them to think they are growing up in some sort of combat zone (which is not only not helpful for them but is insulting to people who live in actual combat zones). 

There is much to love about this country, much to appreciate, and certainly, for most of us, a great deal to be thankful for. Are we the greatest country on Earth? It's a very American thing to want to be able to rate ourselves Number One, but it's a distraction. Can we be great, allow our people to be great, and accomplish great things? We can, and we do, and often it is far removed from politics. And we should be grateful for that.

The saddest lesson of this administration is its demonstration that you can grasp for power and money, that you can get your hands on some of the most powerful levers on the planet, and have it do nothing to sooth the gnawing in your soul. You can radically change your circumstances to acquire more power and wealth than most people can imagine, and you will still be your same old miserable self, empty and chased by inevitable mortality. Miles of words have been written about what Trump lacks, but one obvious item is an authentic love of country, and a less obvious one is a sense of gratitude. 

There are many things in my life because I was born in this particular time and place, and I have t9o be grateful for that. If we don't impart some sense of gratitude in our children, we are missing the boat. This is part of the point of school clubs and sports, the not-always-admirable pitches for school spirit-- learning to be part of something bigger than yourself, and being grateful for what that something gives you in the range of possibilities and achievements. You did not make yourself, and you should be grateful for that (and that gratitude should move you to pass it on). 

I hear the bitching about not feeling Fourthy because That Man is the President. Well, the President is not the country. The country is far bigger than any set of elected representatives or bureaucratic bozos. It is a collection of humans, and that means it's a big messy thing, forever balancing love for our best angels and a desire to clean up our worst impulses. That balance is never perfect, but we should reject any views that A) call for unreasoning unquestioning love that insists everything is perfect or B) call for a total rejection of everything the country is and does as evil and wrong. Both of those views are incorrect (and people who take one of the views will always insist that anyone who disagrees with them at all must be part of the other group), and they are usually political in nature.

Should we teach students to be patriotic? Certainly, and that should include the idea that being patriotic means be willing to question and challenge when we think the country is wrong. There's an important idea there-- that you can love and honor and respect something or someone even as you recognize and challenge its bad choices. Certainly it will be a useful concept for life and connecting with employers, friends, and partners. If your own child came home claiming that their partner was the most perfect human who should never be questioned, you'd be alarmed. If your child came home with a partner that they constantly denigrated and put down, you would also have concerns. Patriotism is complicated-- like every other relationship in life.

Tonight some family and friends will come over. We'll eat some food, and then a few of us will play some traditional jazz for the rest of us (and for neighbors) and then the city will set some fireworks off over the river that runs past my back yard. It will probably be too hot, and it might rain, and my food may or may not be awesome, and the playing will involve some bad notes but I will be grateful for all of it.

SCOTUS Okays Restrictions on Teen Girl Athletes

The Supreme Court has upheld the Idaho and West Virginia bans on trans girls in school sports.

This means trouble for all teen girls playing sports, and we haven't seen the end of the legal attacks.

The ruliong establishes that states may institute such bans. But they did not answer the question, "Do states have to ban trans girls from athletics in order to protect Title IX." We can fully expect that there are already people working to put that question in front of the court.

In the meantime, this ruling will do plenty of damage on its own. 

For trans girls (and it's always trans girls, because the culture panic crowd never gets excited about trans boys-- do they think that becoming a male is admirable but giving up male-hood in order to become a girl is terribly wrong) this means that no matter what they've been through to make gtheir decisions, no matter how widely accepted they are by their peers, the school must deny their identity and bar them from activities that give them joy and connection in their lives. A bunch of grownups have gotten together to look a teeneger in the face and call her names and deny her life. That is messed up.

But anti-trans laws have impact far beyond the tiny number of actual teen girls affected. Let me offer an example or two.

Here's a story from Utah about one of the results of the state's girls track and field competition:

After one competitor “outclassed” the rest of the field in a girls’ state-level competition last year, the parents of the competitors who placed second and third lodged a complaint with the Utah High School Activities Association calling into question the winner’s gender.

Congratulations unnamed female athlete! For your dominance in your sport, you win the chance for the state and your school district to dig through your records to prove that you have always been a girl. 

That's what a trans ban gets you-- any female athlete who is too strong, too dominant, too good, or just too butch, is now subject to a challenge from any disgruntled parent whose daughter lost (second, third, toed for fifth, whatever). 

Ohio almost had an odious bill when the House advanced the Ohio version of a Save Women's Sports Act that allowed losers to burden winners not just with the burden to prove their adequate femaleness, but to do it by way of testosterone levels, dna testing or "participant’s internal and external reproductive anatomy." Congratulations on your win, Bethany. Now, the state needs you to submit to a little physical exam.

That goodness Governor DeWine saw through to the real issue here:

The welfare of those young people needs to be absolutely most important to this issue, whether that young person is transgender or not.

Other states are not so lucky.  Oklahoma and South carolina did get a Save Women's Sports Act passed into law. That one gives any female athlete who thinks she's been boxed out or beaten and deprived of benefits to sue the school, and she's got up to two years to sue. Oklahoma's law doesn't offer any guidance about how the school is supposed to defend itself in court and what demands for "proof" they can place on their athletes. 

And that's before we evenb get to states with laws saying that students must dress in ways the People In Charge deem appropriate for their "gender at birth."

Or take the Ted Cruz anti-trans ad from 2024. The ad shows images of female athletes at a track meet, while a caption says his opponent U.S. Rep Colin Allred has "voted to allow boys in girls sports." How messed up is this ad? Let's count the ways.

1) The track meet is taking place in Oregon.

2) Despite the implication of the caption, the girls are not trans.

3) Nobody with Cruz's campaign asked for permission to use the girls' images.

Anti-trans laws don't just declare open season on trans teens--which would be bad enough--but also declare an open season on all teenage girls. 

We'll see if subsequent decisions make this situation even worse. As of right now, it's bad enough.

 

Ten Federal Voucher Myths

Jorge Elozar, head of Democrats for Education Reform (a group started by hedge fund managers to convince Democrats to support education privatization), has been lobbying hard for the federal voucher program, with most of their talking points gathered into a single post here offering ten reasons that the Dems should not repeal the federal vouchers; the list corresponds to the reasons DFER thinks Democratic governors should sign on.

Let's look at the list.

1. It helps public school students.

Note that this is different from the claim that it helps public schools, which is slightly more honest than Elorza's suggestion elsewhere that public schools might benefit from this. 

But as usual, the list of expenditures includes things that public school students should and do provide, like transportation, special education services, and career training. This only makes sense if the public schools somehow manage to off-load some services to federal funding, which would be bad news for local control and for students who need those services. But it would be good news for those policy leaders looking for ways to dismantle public education and sell off the parts.

2. It Can Bring Significant New Resources Into Public Education

Again, the hint public school systems will benefit from these programs. But come on- if the feds really wanted to inject funding into public schools, it would be far easier to just offer tax credits for supporting a public school. A complicated set up with "scholarship granting organizations" is only useful if you are trying to launder public money so that you can legally give it to a religious organization.

"Scholarship organizations can support services that school districts often struggle to provide at scale, creating new educational opportunities without requiring states to raise taxes or cut other programs." Again, if this were an actual goal, the feds could devise much better ways to do it. Instead they are busy closing down the Department of Education and promising to send education back to the states, by which they mean sending back responsibility for funding any programs the feds don't like.

3. It Helps Close the Out-of-School Enrichment Gap

So federal vouchers will get poor kids SAT coaches and violin lessons? Maybe. But I'm waiting to see regulations that actually limit voucher use to non-wealthy students. Otherwise, I expect that these vouchers will follow the common pattern of mostly supporting families that are not wealth-impaired.

4. It Advances Democratic Priorities Like High-Impact Tutoring

Maybe that is a Democratic priority? It shouldn't be. Two-sigma tutoring is a fabrication, a snare and a delusion that has been thoroughly debunked. 

But even if it weren't an exercise in unicorn farming, please note the usual privatizer shift here, turning beneficial tutoring from something the system provides for everyone into a commodity that you are free to shop for on your own. This is right in line with the choice movement-- "Your child's education should be your responsibility, not society's. But here's a little voucher check to take some of the sting off when we wash our hands of you."

5. It Expands Opportunity for Students With Disabilities

Again, why are we touting a system based on the idea that families of these students should have to go find necessary services on their own. If only there were a program, like a federal program-- a sort of  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and if only that program were fully funded. I bet that would be a far better solution than handing parents a check and saying, "Good luck! Buh-bye!"

6. The Fiscal Impact Is Small Relative to the Federal Budget

Compared to the massive trillion dollar holes blown in the budget by this administration, the amount that this will add to the deficit isn't so bad. So...yay?

DFER skips the other financial impact, like the estimate from American Federation for Children, a severely pro-privatization group, estimates that $300 per child will have to be spent marketing the tax shelter part of this program to convince people to contribute. 

7. It Represents an Investment in America’s Future

Does it? DFER argues that we should welcome throwing more money at education. "The ROI from helping a child learn to read, master algebra, recover from pandemic learning loss, or access specialized support far exceeds the program’s cost," Elorza writes, without asking why the importance of these programs might call for an actual federal investment instead of a tax shelter that is designed to help public tax dollars flow to private schools. Did you forget that was the purpose of the federal voucher program? Elorza is glad you did.

8. It Is Popular With Voters

You know a good way to find out what voters want? Let them vote on it. Except they're not going to do that because school vouchers have never once been voted into place by voters. Voters, given the choice, have rejected vouchers every time. Which is why they are rarely given the choice. Every voucher program in this country was birthed by legislative shenanigans.

You want to show me how popular your program is? Don't show me the results of carefully crafted polling questions. Let people vote.

9. Democrats Need a New Direction on K-12 Education

This one is just whacky. "Ten years ago," says Elorza, " Democrats were the undisputed party of education." I will not dispute for a second that the Democrats lost their claim to be an education party, though I would say that it happened a lot sooner than ten years ago. Ten years ago would be when the GOP started pushing the exact same policy that DFER is arguing for today. 

How did they lose their education mojo? By listening to people like DFER and pushing policies like test and punish, privatization, and generally offering right wing policies with a blue towel draped over their shoulder. But DFER was founded explicitly to perform the "inside job" of getting Dems to fall in line with the privatization movement, and they have been consistent ever since, repeatedly trying out versions of "If you were a true and smart Democrat you would totally want to back school choice." And also "Public schools suck because of the evil teachers union." 

Do the Democrats need a new direction in education? They surely do, but following the privatization policies of Betsy DeVos is neither new nor win Dems education plaudits.

10. Democrats Should Be the Party of Opportunity

To be clear, Elorza is arguing that the federal vouchers expand educational opportunity. The questions he skips are: what kind of opportunity, for whom, and at what cost? Watch this bit of misdirection:

Families are asking for more options, more support, more tutoring, more enrichment, and more help for their children. The FSTC provides all of those things.

This skips over the most important question, which is what would be the best way for the feds to provide those things? Because this isn't it, and to pretend that this program, carefully designed as a tax shelter than funds private schools, is somehow a big boon for public schools and public school families is baloney. 

The DFER argument is like saying, "Yes, an AK-47 assault rifle will let you mow down a bunch of fleshy, vulnerable human beings, but let's not be hasty. You could do useful things with it, too, like cut down shrubbery or open a door you accidentally locked. Really, I don't understand why you don't fully embrace the AK-47 bush trimmer."

Elorza also throws in a bonus myth-- governors should opt in "to keep resources in the state." In that construction, "keep" is doing some heavy lifting, since we are talking about redirecting funds that were already bound for the bottomless money pit that is DC. 

DFER is presenting a backwards-engineered argument. They start with the policy they want to pursue; now they've searched for an argument, landing on "This will solve Problem X" rather than start with Problem X and asking what a good solution for that would be. DFER wants to dismantle and privatize education, and federal vouchers are set up to further that cause of converting a shared societal responsibility into an individual shopping problem.

None of this, unfortunately, means that more states won't sign up for some free federal money. The bare minimum we can hope for is some actual guardrails and restrictions on how the money would be used. Maybe even an actual out loud conversation about the steady erosion of the country's promise of public education. But I don't expect any of that from DFER.  

Chris Rufo and the Anti-Fact Right

For some damn reason or other, Ezra Klien decided to interview Chris Rufo for his podcast and his New York Times column. It's not a very pleasant read, but it is a window into the thinking of the culture panic crowd. I'm not going to walk you through the whole thing, because it's hot and humid and I don't want to spend a second more with Rufo than I need to.

Klein is harkening back to another piece by Rufo, and pulls up Rufo's rejection of the old "facts don't care about your feelings." I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were particularly committed to facts. But Rufo's reply (which employs the royal "we") calls this a "rationalization for losing" before flipping it entirely on its head.

But look, while we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. And, in fact, politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. And politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion — much more on the field of abstract argumentation at the top.

Screw the facts. Rufo's argument here recalls JD Vance explanation for telling lies about Haitian immigrants:

If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.

This is, of course, a critical part of Rufo's strategy, all the way back to the days when he announced that he would simply use his own definition for terms so that he could harness everyone's bad feelings about things they don't like:

The goals is to have the public read something crazy in the news and immediately think 'critical race theory.' We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.'

Klein moves on to question Rufo's argument for more conservative use of "agitprop." That's usually a term to refer to bad propaganda, points out Klein. But Rufo makes a distinction that really deserves our attention:

If you’re conducting, say, propaganda on behalf of a falsehood or evil or an unjust cause, it’s bad. My point is that’s not always necessarily true if you are pursuing a cause that is good and true and beautiful.

Not a word about how one determines if a cause is "good and true and beautiful." In other words, propaganda is good for my side, and bad for the other side. Time to roll out Wilhoit's Law one more time:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

This can apparently be expanded to include not just codified laws on the books, but more universal laws like "tell the truth" or "don't bullshit people."  

Rufo argues that persuasion is just rhetoric, and "rhetoric at an industrial scale" is propaganda. And that's a Good Thing if deployed in service of Our Side and bad for Your Side. Which is as good an explanation of why, as a culture, we go through periods when we are drowning in bullshit. I get the reasoning-- we are in pursuit of a Good and Noble End, so using any means at our disposal is Good. It's a seductive view; it's also wrong. Because we rarely get all the way to our ends, so it tends to be our means that define us. 

Rufo argues that his guiding "telos" is the restoration of the principles of our republic" which he defines thus:

You want to have the principles of liberty and equality. You want to have a functioning, healthy republic, and you want to have a culture that is organized according to virtue and, in particular, the virtues of our Western, Anglo-American civilization.

AKA white nationalism. It's the right wing conservative culture project-- a nation in which the dominant culture is white, male, Christian, straight, healthy, and wealthy and all others sit in the back where they belong, subservient passengers. 

Some parts of the MAGA world seem to believe that such a goal is actually achievable, that we can somehow regress to the 250-year-old past (except, of course, that those folks were trying to look forward and imagine a better way to be a country-- so maybe MAGA would skip that part). That goal is unattainable, so the MAGAs and the Rufos are ultimately defined only by their means, and their means lack honor and integrity and simply focus on flooding the zone with bullshit.

How much damage to society is done by these tactics. Rufo once claimed that "You have to be ruthless and brutal in pursuit of something good" and "To get universal school choice, you really need to operate from a place of universal public school distrust." But what do you get in a society, particularly a post-facts society, when you sow so much ruthlessness, brutality, and distrust? 

I try to imagine how Rufo's ideas would translate to a classroom. Should the teacher use whatever it takes to whip students into a passion for the content (as long as, of course, it's the right content). What would a school look like if a central principle was that facts just don't matter as much as a narrative, and the narrative should be judged not on accuracy but on how well it advances "good and true and beautiful" ends. And what the heck does something "good and true and beautiful" look like if facts don't really matter.

Rufo might argue that all of the above is about political stuff and that within the schoolhouse walls there should be no politics--just truth and beauty and the classic thoughts of great dead white guys. But if the goal is to prepare students to become useful members of society, and society is built on political gamesmanship, how the heck do we make that connection?

Rufo has always displayed some honesty about his intentions and tools, but he also does things like later in the interview when he argues that because Trump wiped out DEI policies and the Department of Justice has "taken a buzz-saw to so-called disparage impact doctrine (which means that a policy is only racist if the writers explicitly announce their racist intent) so therefore "you can make an argument that liberty, equality and virtue have been restored." So, "liberty, equality and virtue" mean, apparently, "white folks are in charge." 

I just don't know how "there are opposing sides and you need to do whatever you can to win--but only if you're on the side that deserves to win" can be transferred onto a school. Or maybe I do and I'm just reluctant to wrap my eyes around such an ugly vision. 

Showing Students They Matter

I very much appreciate a recent post by Ella Meisner at Edutopia. Meisner is a classroom science teacher in Austin, TX, and she reports on a gathering of former students. They didn't turn out to all be budding scientists, but...

But during our catch-up conversations, I heard a surprising sentiment: Top of mind for many former students was how a class made them feel, as opposed to the content they learned or even the grades they earned.

She cites a book by Jennifer Wallace--Mattering: The Secret to a Life of Deep Connection and Purpose-- and its mention of four pillars for a sense of mattering, and talks about implementing those pillars in her classroom.

This is not simply some warm fuzzy soft skill idea-- for students it's a quick step from "I don't matter" to "It doesn't matter whether I try to learn anything in this class or not." MY former students would laugh at the idea that I was some warm, fuzzy teacher; my class was focused on getting them to Know Things and being able to Do Stuff. That kind of attention is, I'm certain, part of how you convey to students that they matter-- by underlining that it matters if they succeed.

Meisner breaks down the four pillars.

Significant: Helping Every Student Feel Seen

Meisner has her own way of delivering Attaboys to her students, including weekly awards. I'm not an awards fan, but I agree that being seen is enormously powerful for students. Why do some students seem to actively seek out negative attention? Because it may be negative, but at least it's attention. They get to be seen.

Not to belabor the obvious, but the first step in making your students feel seen is to, you know, see them. See them as human beings and not problems or obstacles or just one example of a particular type. In English class, it was easy to give assignments that allowed them to show some of themselves. Being seen doesn't need to be a matter of something formal or carefully planned; it can happen in plenty of small moments that can flow naturally if you see them and talk to them like they are human beings.

This, incidentally, is why it's best to call them by their chosen name. To refuse to do so is to explicitly refuse to see them. Anti-trans laws are bad education policy because they state very clearly "We refuse to see you.

Appreciated: Valuing Students for Who They Are

Meisner says the idea here is to value students for more than just their performance on class-related tasks. In my small town district, this meant things like going to see the students play a sport or appear in a play. It was one of the benefits of being an extra-curricular advisor-- getting to see students function in other settings, and I was always surprised/disappointed at the number of teachers who never attended other stuff.

Seeing students in other contexts in which they may be far more confident and capable than in your classroom can be transformative. Once a year, I took a yearbook photographer and staff member to our version of a CTE campus where I got to see students who struggled in my classroom really shine operating heavy equipment, building a house, or providing home health care. 

Depended on: Helping Students Feel Needed

As Meisner points out, this can be one of the values of group work (and, again, extracurriculars). I feel like elementary teachers have an edge here; my sons feel like a crucial part of their classroom when it's their turn to take a classroom "job" like door minder or lunch counter (insert nostalgic stories from the days of cleaning chalkboard erasers).

Invested In: Showing Students You Care About Their Well-Being

Meisner includes end-of-year notes here. One of my sons' teachers just sent home a thank you note for an end-of-year gift they gave her (and picked out themselves), and while I wouldn't say it will change the course of their lives, it made an impression on them (more so because it comes at the end of a year in which each of these pillars has been a factor). 

Of the four, this is the one that veers closest to an important line-- the one between "showing interest in student's life" and "mind your own damn business." Not every student wants-- or needs--you to invest in them, and sometimes a great sign of respect for them as a human being is to allow them to set their own boundaries and respect them. You can offer to hear if something's up, but if they don't want to talk about it, back off. Showing you care doesn't mean being intrusive. 

Meisner cites the old “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care," and honestly, that saying always makes me cringe. Not just because it requires some sort of overt display of caring, but because--well, I don't need them to care how much I know. I just need them to grasp that the world will be a better place if they leave my class with more understanding and skills than when they entered it. I don't need them to be impressed with me; I would like them to be impressed with themselves. 

Still, for teachers in the field, this framework is not a bad one for a little summer reflection on how you interact with students. 

ICYMI: Penny Carnival Edition (6/27)

 Last night I marched (well, rode) in an Independence Day parade, something I have done for fifty-some years. Friday was the big penny carnival in town, for which the board of directrors is almost, but not yet, too old to really be entertained. This week I'll play in a special concert as part of my city's week-ish long celebration of the Fourth. I'll host the annual cookout in my backyard, followed by some trad jazz jamming. I like this holiday, regardless of what's going on elsewhere, because the government is not the country any more than a set of headlights drive the car. 

Here's the reading list for the week.

Tennessee increases private-school voucher vendor contract by $356M

There is a pile of money to be made by the groups that administer voucher dollars, and in Tennessee that pile is about to become mountainous. Sam Stockard reports for Tennessee Lookout.

Catholic Diocese of Cleveland misleads public about EdChoice

Stephen Dyer keeps trying to explain the realities of funding in Ohio, which becomes more of an uphill climb when certain parties keep pushing out inaccurate information.

School Voucher Advocate is Largest Single Donor in Tennessee Gov's Race

Jeff Yass is putting some of his fortune behind Marsha Blackburn's race for Tennessee governor. Andy Spears reports.

LA Lawsuit Challenges Shifting MFP Dollars to Teacher Stipends

Louisiana's teacher stipend-based sideway raise is the center of legal maneuvering. The indispensable Mercedes Schneider explains.

TN school to pay $10K, rescind suspension over social media post

A Tennessee private school tried to punish a senior for coming out as gay; she took them to court and now they have to pay. Angela Latham reports.

Legal experts speak out on idea of NV religious public charter schools

Including NPE's Carol Burris. The National Education Policy Center published a brief explaining how states could help draw a line between church and state.

Trends in Local Teacher Supply Since the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Teacher Job Applications

The trends uncovered by this working paper are downward, all across the board.

We Can’t Give Up on Teacher Diversity

Sharif El-Mekki does cite the untrustworthy National Council on Teacher Quality here, but his call for more Black male teachers still makes sense. In Education Week.

Bernadette Wilson and Right-Wing Candidates Proudly Embrace Anti-Public School Agenda

In Alaska, Mathew Beck reports, Moms for Liberty still draw plenty of obeisance from GOP candidates. The details are not encouraging.

Understanding NAEP: A Reader

Paul Thomas provides some useful sources for unraveling the data from NAEP. 

How to Get Students to School? Stop Driving them Out!

Nancy Bailey has some thoughts about the general panic over "chronic absenteeism." Maybe schools could stop doing some of these counter-productive things.

Broken Ribs, Broken Narratives, and Why I Still Don’t Trust the Test

TC Weber fell down and hurt himself, but his stay in the health care system gave him a chance to think about things like the Big Standardized Test, and he's ready to share those thoughts.

Like I said, Testing is Bullshit

Jeff Waid also has thoughts about the BS Test, stirred up by Ross Wiener's NYT op ed. 

Comparison of Florida’s Major K-12 (Publicly Funded) Education Options

Sue Kingery Woltanski offers a handy chart for comparing the major publicly funded education options in Florida. Nice and clear. 

Your tax dollars funding fast cars and tuition breaks for millionaires

Stephen Dyer points out that taxpayers are now helping private schools turn a profit (and buy cool cars).

How to talk about "AI" without adding to the anthropomorphization

Emily Bendar and Nanna Inie give some practical advice about how to talk about AI without contributing to the impression that it is a living, thinking entity.

The United States Is the Only World Cup Nation Without Maternity Leave

Liz Plank reminds us that there is one respect in which the US lags all other World Cup competitors.

This week at the Bucks County Beacon I looked at the proposed reform bill for the state's long-time voucher program. 

This selection doesn't really require an explanation.

Choice for the Right Families

The choice system and the public system have two fundamentally different missions, and sometimes the choice crowd forgets itself and makes the difference explicit.

Take this webinar. It came to me in an e-mail blurbed "Attract the right families," and promises to introduce a three-step framework that will help schools "define their value, identify the right families, and guide them toward increased student enrollment."

The webinar is about marketing and features two marketing executives-- Amanda Duitsman for FlexPoint education, a cyber curriculum company, and Ashley Reyes for Florida Virtual School. That makes sense in a country in which school is inextricably welded to free market dynamics. It's not an anomaly; there's a whole industry out there like Schola Inbound Marketing with its promise to help Christian schools recruit "mission-appropriate families" and avoid the "rotten apple syndrome."

The free market does an excellent job of sorting out winners and losers, not just among vendors, but among customers. A business makes choices about which customers it wants to serve, and which ones it doesn't. This makes sense for restaurants or automobile dealers. No restaurant thinks it has a mission to feed every person in its area; it picks and chooses which customers it will serve.

We see this philosophy in the modern choice sector. Charter schools (like Success Academy in NYC) use a variety of obstacles and tests to shoo away families they don't want to serve. Voucher states write the laws to preserve a private school's "right" to reject students for any reason (or none at all). 

Choice fans will try to counter this argument by claiming that public schools aren't open to everyone either. But that glides past a fundamental difference in approach. The public school system says that the government has an obligation to provide your child with an education. The free market choice system says that society at large has no obligation to provide you with anything; it's your job to go find some vendor willing to educate your child. 

In that world, the public schools become holding pens for the hot potatoes that no private or charter school wants, a struggling system starved for resources and without much of a constituency to speak up for those schools.

There's one other irony in the "but public schools don't admit everyone, either" argument. The argument is that families are sorted by housing costs, and that's not wrong, but it also means that free market forces in the housing sector create educational inequity. And the solution to that free market effect is... the free market? The free market in housing has, in some times and places, been warped by prejudice and discrimination-- most notably the practice of redlining. Yet some choice advocates insist that private schools should be able to indulge in an educational version of redlining.

Attaching free market forces to education incentivizes schools of choice to be careful and selective about which students they admit. A free market choice system rejects the principle that we have a shared responsibility to make sure that every child has a decent education and replaces it with the notion that the responsibility belongs solely to the family, and that family will have to hope that they are deemed a desirable family for a school of choice to enroll. For the "right" families, choice; for the rest, good luck, caveat emptor, and here's hoping your local public school is still open.