Google's Classroom AI Rage Bait

Nobody likes to train teachers like Google, who, like tobacco companies, understand that if you can lock those customers in while they're young, you'll get to keep them for life. Hence, Google's pre-eminence in training teachers to use whatever damn thing they've come up with. The "pipeline of future users" memo was turned up by NBC journalist Tyler Kingkade. Kingkade just came back from a free two-day Google training camp for pushing Gemini, Google's house brand of odious AI, and the resulting piece is exactly the sort of thing I'm not supposed to read unless I wash it down with a double order of blood pressure medication.

But here, in one place, we can find so much of what is wrong about the AI-in-the-classroom boosterism. I've read this so you don't have to, but it's going to be neither short nor sweet. God bless Kingkade for suffering through the whole thing.

Kingkade opens with a group of k-12 educators "sitting in an atrium on Google's campus" trying to imagine what pushback they'd get from some old fossil of a colleague, the kind who is upset that cursive is no longer taught. She might "yell" that AI is just another shiny fad. "What’s next, she might ask — robots teaching kids how to read?" Oh, that whacky old fossil.

Where do they turn to get help with this dinosaur? Why, they ask Gemini for tips, of course. 

They would win over this skeptical English teacher by explaining what generative AI could do for her: create classroom materials for phonics lessons, reducing what would normally be hours of work to just two minutes. The key, the educators agreed, was to avoid getting into an argument or letting this AI critic unload all her fears uninterrupted.

Got that? Don't listen to her-- don't even let her finish talking. Instead, act like a computer program, not a human colleague. And certainly don't treat her concerns as if they are legitimate. Focus on "pain points" says one leader, and how Gemini can take away your pain. And I have to tell you-- in my youth, I went through training for how to handle penitent peers who had answered an altar call, and some of this "training" seems very familiar.

“It’s not as scary if you’ve taken something off of my plate versus giving me a new thing that I have to then go out and learn,” Winston Roberts, director of an AI initiative at ISTE+ASCD, a nonprofit education group that worked with Google to develop the training, told educators from a stage.

When a non-profit is pushing a particular profit, you have to ask who is paying the bills. In this "partnership," somebody has invested a lot of their marketing budget. Teachers get way way wayyyyyy too much of this kind of "training" that is actually marketing masquerading as "help" for teachers.

Kingkade takes a moment to note the considerable growing backlash against AI in general and screens in classrooms in particular. Then we are back to the session.

We meet an English teacher from Hawaii who notes that AI is now part of student vocabulary; the example is that students use AI to call things fake, which ought to tell us a valuable lesson right there. And then she offers this comparison: 

“If a student’s running in the hallway, you don’t take away the hallway — you teach them the proper behavior for the hallway.”

With all due respect to my Hawaiian colleague, no. If a student is shooting at things with a gun, you take away the gun. You don't let them drive a car until they are 16 and have passed requisite tests of competence. 

Google rolled out it's "free" online training that includes "guidance about creating study guides, crafting lesson plans and analyzing where students are getting stuck," but not arguments for why AI might be a bad match for those tasks. Crafting lesson plans? That should be done by someone who knows the material and the students- AI knows neither. Analyzing where students get stuck? I'm unconvinced that AI can do that at all, but even if it could, the important question is WHY students get stuck. That is one of the most basic teacher functions-- working out what mistakes in thinking are taking the student into the weeds. Simple repeating, "Yeah, you are in the weeds again" is no help; students need help figuring out what wrong turn they took.

The training materials describe Gemini as “an engine for high-quality instruction” to do the “heavy lifting” for designing classroom lessons. “As an educator, this shift moves you into the role of a ‘learning conductor,’” one slide states.

Learning conductor? Learning conductor??!! Time for another blood pressure pill. Gemini is not an engine for high quality instruction because high quality instruction involves a human. Nor can Gemini design high quality lessons; it can only mimic and average the lessons it has input. And wait a minute-- isn't "learning conductor" a fancy update of "guide on the side," a version of teaching that is widely and justly mocked?

“It’s really, really important that we use it,” Joseph South, chief innovation officer for ISTE+ASCD, "because Google has bet a shit-ton of money on this, and we need these kids to grow up into paying customers." Okay, he didn't say that last part. “We can’t just ignore it, we can’t ban it, we can’t keep it out of our schools — that’s not gonna prepare us for the future.” That may be at least partly true, but "just lie back and let it roll over you" doesn't seem like great future prep, either.

Kingkade reminds us about the "pipeline" memo and reminds us that Google is company that convinced every that schools needed Chromebooks ("What if a laptop, but broken") which we're now thinking, maybe not. Kingkade has watched a 2018 presentation about keep Google atop education mountain includes this great quote

“Educators are sitting on a growing goldmine of data,” the presentation said, but they needed help organizing and making sense of it. If Google designed ways for schools to use student data, it would set “the stage for us to reinvent the education system through data.”

Goldmine of data indeed. Also, shades of our data overlords, who used to be so sure that if they had all the data, they could control the world. Remember the claim that given access to all the data, the company could tell the student what to eat for breakfast on test day? Or that students wouldn't have to take the SAT because we'd already know what they were going to get? Yeah, that company is now toast, but the notion that a "data-driven" ed system would be awesome (and profitable and provide a digital profile of future meat widgets that corporations would love)-- apparently that kind of creepy Big Brother thinking still has a home.

Speakers at the training emphasized that humans should always stay involved with any AI use and that technology shouldn’t replace teachers [or, you know, learning conductors]. They focused instead on how a teacher could use Gemini to create a comic strip that explains how greenhouse gases trap heat, for example, or how elementary school children could use AI to generate more realistic depictions of their ideas than they are capable of drawing.

What the hell is wrong with these people??! Yes, the most important part of a third grade project is how realistic the rendering of the art is! After these last few years, Google, with all of its millions, is still struggling to come up with a non-stupid use case for AI in a classroom. But hey-- let's have a heavy dose of irony  --

Casey Cuny, a high school English teacher in a Los Angeles suburb, described asking his students to debate their takeaways from readings — like the concept of “doublethink” from “1984” by George Orwell — with Gemini before discussing them in class.

“It’s the best discourse I’ve seen in years on some of these Socratic seminars I’ve been running in my classes,” he said. “It does push the thinking when used intentionally and strategically. And remember that I’m still using teaching methods — I’m not just putting it on the AI and walking away.”

Yes, class, turn and talk to your surveillance plagiarism machine about themes in 1984. Time for another blood pressure pill. You know what else is good for pushing thinking intentionally and strategically?? Human teachers and students! But it's good to know that when he turns on the AI, he still stands right there. Many of these AI boosters remind me of the Common Core days when teachers would self-own with variations of "I couldn't do my damned job until I had the Common Core Standards to tell me what to do." Sigh. I'm sorry. Cuny is probably a lovely human being and maybe a fine teacher, but I cannot begin to describe the rage I would feel if I found out that this was what was happening in my child's classroom.

Kingkade notes that the indoctrinees knew they'd be facing "challenges in evangelizing for AI." But one tech teacher said the training equipped him to "show skeptics how AI could be beneficial to learning-- not just for cheating." And “They may not like it, but I don’t think that’s going to change things,” he said. “The naysayers are not going to stop it.”

Yeah, you can't do AI marketing without just insisting that it's inevitable, which is admittedly so much easier than trying to provide compelling reasons that a teacher with a free will and professional conscience should choose to incorporate it. 

Google and ISTE+ASCD are planning a host of these trainings across the country so that teachers can learn that using Gemini is awesome and great, also, how to roll over those terrible old-timey teachers who want to question whether there's any actual good reason to hand the class reins to Gemini while they become learning conductors. Because "training" here means not teacher training, but unpaid field sales evangelist training. I'm going to go do some deep breathing exercises now. 

 

John Oliver Looks At New College

You may recall Governor Ron DeSantis's attempt to turn a tiny Very Liberal Arts college into the Hillsdale of the South, a project that was going to be a proof-of-concept for red state governors across the country. He even enlisted that great culture panic soldier, Chris Rufo, whose whole thesis is that back in the sixties, lefties took over higher education as a start to taking over the entire culture.

I've checked in on the story from time to time, but this week, New College got the John Oliver treatment. As always, there is language Not Suitable For Work, but it's a pretty sharp take on the whole fiasco, and provides lots of screen time for our old buddy Christopher. Well worth a watch to see how badly this was botched. As Oliver correctly points out, it's not impossible to have a Very Conservative college-- but dear Lord, not like this--

Federal Anti-LGBTQ Students Bills

I wish it were more complicated than this, but it isn't.

For cultural right-wingers, the idea is that the dominant culture in this nation should be white (European), male, (a certain type of) Christian, and unfailingly straight.

Add "with wealth and poverty flowing towards those who deserve them" and you get right wing free marketeer.

Add "because God says so" and you get Christian nationalist.

And to get MAGA, you add anger and vengefulness aimed at anyone who ever dared to contradict any of the above.

We've seen the varieties of anti-LGBTQ bills championed on the state level, from censoring books that dare to mention that such persons exist to requiring schools to force all students to perform straight identities, regardless of how true those may be.

Unfortunately, we're seeing more of the same baloney on the federal level, especially in the House.

Back in May, the House passed a bill entitled "The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act" (so..um.. SIPKA?). It's short and simple. 

For one, it would forbid any ESEA funds being used to teach "gender ideology," and if you're wondering what exactly that is, the bill refers you to Donald Trump's executive order Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which defines "gender ideology" in part as "the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one's sex." That's part of a long rant that boils down to "biology and science say there are just two sexes and so your gender is determined by your genitals period the end shut up" which ignores the actual science of sex. But opposition to "gender ideology" is a particular type of marker, indicating someone who doesn't want to argue that LGBTQ people do not actually exist, and that anyone who claims otherwise is delusional or stupid or evil.

The other part of the bill requires schools to obtain parent permission before making any accommodations for "gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form" for a student in elementary or middle grades. Works fine except for all those students whose parents do not support or accept them. 

House Education and Workforce Committee also reported out HR 8705-- "Civics and History Advancement to Restore Learning, Integrity and Education Act" (CHARLIE Act, because they are determined they really think they've got something with that guy).  Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah tossed this one out there, and it's more of the same--                          

The bill says "no funds may be used for discriminatory equity ideology or gender ideology." You may have missed the part where Dear Leader tossed out "Discriminatory Equity Ideology" as an alternative meaning for DEI, but it's once again the notion that anything that tries to push straight white male Christians out of the spotlight on center stage is Very Bad and is, in fact, discrimination. 

But by censoring any piece of history education that doesn't center straight white Christian men, these guys hope to restore balance and fairness. They are so sure that they lost that center stage spot because evil lefties took over education and started indoctrinating children-- so the obvious solution is to get in there and start indoctrinating children to the right way of thinking. 

"We just want neutral instruction," say the supporters, believing in their hearts that a truly neutral view of American history and society would present straight white Christian men in a central spot.\

Well, none of this is new, but it's worth noticing that these kinds of attempts to enforce the culture right's ideology on students is now getting pushed at the federal level (you know-- the level where MAGA says they want to send control of schools back to the states). Now is no time to stop contacting your elected representatives, no matter who they are. 

PA: Center for Cyber Charter Information

I've referred to their work many times over the past few years, but I want to take a moment to plug Education Voters of Pennsylvania. They are an exceptional resource for information about privatization shenanigans in Pennsylvania.

In particular, they have become the commonwealth's premiere source for information about the cyber charter industry, in no small part because they have been willing to drag the cybers back into court time and time again, because even though the cyber industry loves to hoover up mountains of taxpayer dollars, they would really rather not be accountable to taxpayers for how those dollars are spent. Repeatedly confronted by the Right To Know laws in the state that require them to make public their financial activities, cybers continue to fall back on the tactic of "Make me! Take me to court, I dare you!" And EVP has, and in the process they have accumulated an extraordinary pile of data.

Previously EVP put out a series of posts-- "Cyber Charter Waste of the Week" -- now all included in one page of the EVP website. These break down the huge piles of taxpayer dollars being spent on things like sports team sponsorships, marketing swag, and Amazon gift cards. 

In an entire report, EVP breaks down the millions of dollars of dollars spent on advertising, as well as the lousy return in actual students achievement. 

There is a report on the massive hoarding of assets (including a massive real estate empire). There's a raft of advocacy tools for people who want to get involved but aren't quite sure how. 

And there's a new transparency hub, where you can look at the documents that EVP has managed to claw out of cyber charter hands, including actual minutes of Board of Trustees meetings for those schools. EVP has put financial transparency documents there as well. 

This is one of EVP's strengths-- they always show their work, so you can check for yourself. 

Every state needs an organization like Education Voters of Pennsylvania to bring transparency to how certain education-flavored businesses are handling the dollars that taxpayers contributed for educating students (and not for enriching charter executives). For Pennsylvanians and those who follow Pennsylvania education issues, it's a huge help. For folks in other states, it's a model. 

Government Picks "Real" Religions

I have argued a gazillion times that allowing when a government makes noise about protecting religious liberty and putting God back in assorted government places, they are really talking about exerting government control over religion. And now we've got one more example to add to the list.

The list already includes some classics. Like the time that Florida thought they would be clever by authorizing pseudo-chaplains (with the all the title and none of the training) to get into public schools. As they are wont to do, the Satanic Temple immediately announced their intention to get their own chaplains in the field, and Governor DeSantis declared that they were not a real religion and wouldn't be allowed (despite the law clearly saying that even people with no religion at all could be pseudo-chaplains). 

Even the bill's sponsor was smart enough to see the problem here (and it's not Satan). Senator Erin Grall told Soule:

I think that as soon as we get in the middle of defining what is religion and what is not, and whether or not someone can be available and be on a list, we start to run (into) constitutional problems.

We have multiple examples of states opening up a voucher program to fund private religious schools and then having a fit because it turns out that there is such a thing as a non-Christian religious school, and they would really like to not have that.  

And there are those states, like Texas and Florida and Louisiana, that would like to require the posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Only there are multiple versions of the decalogue in the Bible, and more variations to be found among the different religious traditions, even if we're just talking Jewish and Catholic and Protestant traditions. The states were only too happy to dictate their own version of the sacred text, which not only quietly settled centuries of religious debate, but at the same time reduced the sacred text to a secular political offering on par with the Declaration of Independence. Louisiana even helpfully offered some poster ideas that equated Moses with House Speaker Mike Johnson. Really. 

Having chipped away at the wall between church and state, some folks are still doggedly pursuing the idea of making charter schools eligible to collect taxpayer dollars to teach religion to children. People of faith ought to be opposed to this idea (and to their credit, some on the right are very much so) because such a system will inevitably lead to the government deciding which religions are "real" and belong on the list.

For a demonstration, look no further than the Department of Defense, where a list of over 200 recognized religions has been reduced to 31. “This decrease in religious affiliation codes is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of ‘officially approved’ religions,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement issued to the press so that they could not see him roll his eyes in person. 

The Unitarians didn't make the list. The Mormons are upset because the list says they aren't actually Christians, which has been a debated issue since Joseph Smith first talked to angels, but I guess the matter is now settled by the DOD. 

For the gazillionth time-- the First Amendment is not just to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government. Any government Office of Religious Freedom and Awesomeness will inevitably be used to push government control over religion. This goes double for all the attempts to funnel taxpayer dollars to private religious schools and funnel religion to public schools. Sooner or later, there will be a list. 

ICYMI: Board Birthday Edition (6/7)

As of this week, the Board of Directors is now a year older an infinitely wiser. What a party we have had. A fine way to kick off summer vacation. Most of my grandchildren, located in other parts of the country, must labor on for a couple more weeks, so best wishes to them and their parents. But here at the home office, things look pretty much like this.

But I still have things for you to read. Here's the list. 

The Machine They Built to Dismantle Public Education

Miss Frazzled is a widely-followed voice in the teacher and education space, and she has written this comprehensive view of the work being done to dismantle education. Definitely worth the read.

Colorado’s ‘first public Christian school’ closes permanently

Colorado wanted to be on the forefront of legalizing religion in a "public" school, but that dream is going to have to wait, because their trend-setting "public Christian school" has shut down. Ann Schimke reports for Chalkbeat.

Legislators scramble to try to make EdChoice Constitutional. They can't.

Ohio's big voucher program has been ruled unconstitutional, and besides fighting that ruling in the courts, the legislature is trying to tweak the law to make it not so constitution violatey. Stephen Dyer says they might as well give up.

A Koch-connected school choice contractor could get $2 million from Florida taxpayers

Oh look. The Kochtapus is going to try some of those sweet federal voucher dollars. Courtesy of Florida, of course. 

Can AI Handle Parent-Teacher Conferences?

Nancy Flanagan looks at the prospects of using AI to help with parent-teacher conferences. Just simulations, mind you. Because a bot can definitely simulate a parent.

Misunderstanding Third-Grade Reading Proficiency: On Resisting Efficiency and Punishment in Reading Policy

Paul Thomas breaks down some details on the zombie policy of retaining third graders.

Who Speaks for Children?

Bruce Lesley is concerned about the loss of some of the infrastructure for children's advocacy. But at least he has a thought about what you can do.

Teachers’ emotions can make or break student learning

A new study from the American Psychological Association suggests that teacher feelings actually affect student learning. Johnathan Kantrowitz explains.

What Landry’s Executive Order on La. Teacher Pay Actually Does (and Doesn’t)

Louisiana's governor made some big-sounding promises. The indispensable Mercedes Schneider looks through the fine print for us.

Trump officials went after dozens of colleges. Now they’re rewriting the rules for all of academia

Sigh. Collin Binkley reports for the AP on the big fat program from Dear Leader's minions to bring higher education to heel.

Must Everything Be About Money?

Speaking of which, what about the new policies focusing on how much graduates with particular degrees make? Steve Nuzum responds. 

The Worst Use Case for Generative AI is Writing

John Warner has been arguing all along that using AI for writing is a terrible idea. Now he's seeing some signs that maybe some folks are catching on.

Most Americans broadly support public education for undocumented students – regardless of their political affiliation and religion

Some actual research showing that actual Americans support a decent approach to educating all children who live in this country.

The Rise of Right-Wing "Biblical Economics"

Katherine Stewart has done exceptional work chronicling Christian nationalism in this country. Here's a look at the idea that God really wants us to be free marketeers.

I’m Trying to Teach Humanity Before It Disappears

An odd headline to find at EdSurge, but Amanda Rosas gets to the challenge of teaching in the age of MAGA.

I might have posted this before. I think of it many times a year, as certain birthdays drive by. It's supposed to be a child's lullaby, but it gets me every time. 

Subscribe! It's free and always will be.

Will Public Schools Benefit From Federal Vouchers?

Discussion has heated up about the federal voucher program and, specifically, whether blue states should opt in, and whether such opt-inning is inevitable. Colorado's Jarid Polis and New York's Kathy Hochul appear to be primed to take Trump Education Dollars. Folks are looking at Pennsylvania's voucher-curious governor Josh Shapiro (I suggested he not, but that may not be enough to keep it from happening). 

The temptation centers around two issues. 

First, people from the state are probably going to take the tax credit that goes with contributing to the voucher program. Shouldn't governors, the argument goes, make sure that money from their own state doesn't end up going to some other state. It's an odd argument, because without the tax credit, those dollars would have gone to DC and on to Lord Knows Where anyway, so it's not like non-participating states are losing anything                    

Second is the assertion that some of this voucher money can be used to fund public schools and not just private ones. Consider, for instance, this slide show from a presentation by Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. Roza spent fifteen years at University of Washington's Center for Privatizing Reimagining Public Education (taking one year off to work with the Gates Foundation) and took the Edunomics director's job in 2012. Edunomics folks have thrown their weight behind some bad reformy ideas like the Super Sardinemaster teaching model (fire all the bad teachers and jam all the students into class with the good ones). 

In her slide show, Roza gets one thing exactly right-- the Treasury Department hasn't yet issued the exact rules for the federal vouchers (Education Freedom Tax Credits), so there's a whole lot we don't yet know. 

What seems clear is that the mechanics of the federal vouchers (like all other vouchers) make it hard for public schools to get a piece of the funding stream. The donors hand money to the Scholarship Granting Organization, and the SGO hands the money to a famnily-- not the school. 

So the missing link is the means of having the families hand their money to a public school.

They aren't going to hand it over in the form of tuition, because it's a free public school. Roza suggests there are three "scenarios" under which the public school could get its hands on some of that money.

Scenario 1: Homeschool or private school students who purchase add-ons from the district. I'm not clear what that might involve; at least in Pennsylvania, most of those students are entitled to get extras from their district for free, including everything from advanced classes to extracurriculars like band and theater and sports. In this state, I'm pretty sure the public school couldn't charge an other-schooled student for anything that district students get for free.

Scenario 2: Disrtict students who sign up for "extras" like tutoring, summer programs, etc. Students could even choose "priced electives/clubs, e.g.financial literacy, robotics, possibly APs and VocEd, etc." I don't even know where to start with this. If some of these "extras" are being provided by third parties, klike a tutoring service, then the district doesn't get a penny. But if we are talking about a district that offers some parts of its academic program only for those who will pay for it, that's a crazypants model, a model that takes the "public" right out of public education. 

Especially given some of her examples: "Below grade-level students can opt in to extended yearservices, small group supports, homework help, etc." Are you behind in school? Maybe in danger of not graduating on time? Well, for just a few dollars more, you can get the rest of the education that we promised you!

But that's really just the warm-up for 

Scenario 3: Every district studentparticipates in a bundled set of“enhanced” services.

This is absolute dystopian bullshit, a literal use of the "subscription to unlock what ought to be regular features" model from the world of software. This image is taken straight from the slide:

""Go get us some of that free federal money," declares Imaginary School District, "or your kid will only have access to Public Education Basic, with none of the benefits of our Plus or Premium plans." Look at Roza's hypothetical list. AP classes? Full day K? Orientations!! Mental health!!! What the hell school district charges for that stuff? Surely she also meant to include lunches on her list. 

This is like airline pricing ("You can buy a ticket to fly on our plane, but if you would like to bring luggage or sit down or breathe our air, that will be extra!")

In her presentation, Roza suggested that this is all just a neat way to replace fund raisers. She also suggests that districts could require families to fill out a scholarship form as part of registration. She also recommends you do some arm-twisting of friends and relatives to make their contribution to the SGO that serves your kids. Which would seem to suggest a funding system that re-enforces the already-existing gap between wealthy and non-wealthy districts. Do you have lots of folks who can donate to your district's SGO? No? Well, it's Public Education Basic for you.

This sure seems like a recipe for creating a multi-tier school system, where options that ought to be part of the program become upsells. It's a proposal to lower the floor for what constitutes a minimal free public education down into the basement, with steps out of that basement on a strictly pay-to-play basis. But there's another downside.

This is also a recipe for putting local schools at the mercy of federal operators, because now a major revenue stream will flow through DC. That means federal leverage over local policy ("Get rid of those Naughty Books or you are cut off from federal voucher funds"). There is a certain genius in the federal vouchers in that should MAGA be swept out of office, the revenue flowing through this program will create pressure from even blue states to keep this right wing policy in place. 

The federal voucher program does not support school choice; it's a private school subsidy wrapped in a tax shelter. It's not meant to help public schools, and it won't, unless they are willing to bend themselves into a twisted fun-house mirror version of what a public school system is meant to be. 

Historian Adam Laats points out that this kind of public subsidy for private schools has a history of failure, And a zillion people have pointed out that this voucher, like all voucher's, is about the school's choice, not school choice (because your right to choose is not nearly as sacred as school operators' right to discriminate against any children for any reason). 

And maybe that's part of the point of these various attempts to sell the idea that this will be a subsidy for public schools as well as private schools. Except, of course, if the federal government really wanted to subsidize public schools, they could just do it or, at the very least, stop trying to slash the meager amount of funding that they do provide, instead of sending the money to public schools via this long, twisty path. Honestly, this whole "federal vouchers will benefit public schools" argument is the kind of convoluted baloney that only a thinky tank wizard or a government bureaucrat could love. Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean it won't work.