Students aren’t benefiting much from tutoring, one new study shows
Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Need Help!
NC public schools feel "suffocated" by lack of funding as voucher deal advances
The Education Freedom Alliance believes public education dollars can and should follow the student, not the system. Our current “one-size-fits-all” system of public education simply does not work for every student or every family. While there are plenty of students who do perform at their highest level in their local public school, every child is unique, and states should provide parents with options for their children to thrive through policies promoting education freedom.
It's the current voucher pitch-- we're no longer trying to sell them as refuge for students stuck in "failing" schools, because we now know that the data shows that vouchers aren't better at all. And voucherites have fully adopted the goal of universal vouchers because A) it gets them closer to full privatization and B) rich, well-connected people make way better political allies than poor people.
There's an assortment of "updates" aka PR pieces for the cause that reflect another key tactic-- to go after vouchers state by state. "Fighting for parental rights and education freedom--one state at a time" is in bold font on their page. Voucherites in Congress haven't given up--the House just advanced yet another bill for national vouchers (also ALEC-spawned). But it's likely doomed like all the previous attempts, and EFA's state-by-state strategy may also be a recognition that the election in November isn't necessarily going to result in a friendly administration. IOW, ALEC may smell some Trumpian flop sweat.Morgan Polikoff (USC Rosier School of Education, FutureEd) and some folks at the reformy Center for Reinventing Public Education along with the Data Quality Campaign wanted to put together a report on what state report card sites had to say about pandemic learning loss trajectories.
What they found is what lots of us could have told them-- the state school report card sites kind of stink.
The report itself is pretty brief. Do state sites provide longitudinal data? Only a few provide it, and not in any manner that is easy. Most commonly they provide Big Standardized Test data, graduation rates, a few other odds and ends, again, not always easy to find.
And "Overall, state report cards were remarkably difficult to use." Sometimes technical issues. Sometimes too much data in unwieldy format, and some just damned near impossible to navigate. I'd add to the list sites with a whole lot of edu-jargon that parents will need to translate. Add on top of that that most of the sites are hard to locate in the first place. In the process of writing about education for over a decade, I have often gone looking for information about particular schools, and not once has a search engine directed me to a state's report card site.
In his frustrated take over this adventure, Polikoff asks the right questions. For instance, "who is the intended user?" Is there an audience for these sites? One theory, favored by some reformy types, is that parents trying to pick a school will head to these sites to shop for a school. But most of the information that a parent would want is just not there at all, and maybe some folks should finally release the dream that parents will choose schools based on Big Standardized Test scores (and not sports programs or location or who else has kids going there).
It's that same childlike faith that transparency and data will drive the education marketplace towards excellence, which is doomed because A) excellence in education defies transparent data collection (BS Test results are not it) and B) that's not how the marketplace works, anyway.
I'm not sure there is any audience for these sites at all. It's the kind of thing I think of as a library publication--something that puts down information that needs to be stored somewhere, because it's important and the odd researcher or historian may want it at some point. Like the big 19th century history of your town, or your family genealogy, or a book of instructions for household plumbing repair. It doesn't have an audience in the usual sense of the word, but it's information you put somewhere just in case someone needs it.
If there is an audience for these sites, it would probably be some federal regulatory office that gave states the impression that they would be held accountable for some assortment of these data. So like a lesson plan-- somebody told you you have to do it, but that doesn't mean they (or you) are going to look at it. Perhaps a state could use this information to actually direct assistance to schools, and certainly some states have used public school performance data to target those schools for privatization. But do either of those processes require an actual state report card website?
Is there an audience at all? I checked Pennsylvania's Future Ready site on a traffic checking site and found that it averaged 737 visits a month since April. Florida, a more volatile education state, shows around 950 per month during that time (and 4% of the traffic is from India). Now maybe if we drill down into pages within the site, we find better results. But should state functionaries be putting in much effort for that kind of traffic. Or should they be trying to drive traffic there to justify its existence?
So Polikoff's last question, based on an observation made by some members of his committee.
Are state reports doomed to be compliance exercise?
Well, yes. Yes, they are. Compliance exercises are the special hallmark of state governments, especially in areas like education where politics demands answers but actual meaningful answers are hard to come by. And as Rick Hess has observed, while it may be easy to make someone do something, it's hard to make them do it well. Particularly when it's unclear why you're doing it.
Act 89 evaluations occur at the request of the nonpublic school and with parent consent. Evaluations may include reports on students’ academic ability, academic achievement, social/emotional development, and behavior. The Act 89 evaluation, however, does not determine a student’s eligibility for IDEA services.
The psychologist is hire through the state Intermediate Unit (in PA, these are regional offices of the state department of education), and it is the IU that determines what exact type and scope of services are provided.
One can argue that the state would take on providing these services as a way of making sure that students don't skip through the cracks just because they are attending a private school. But the effect is that of reducing costs for the private school (which, as always, may discriminate as it wishes and in ways that public schools may not). It's a public subsidy for a private school that gets to play by its own rules on the public dime. I suppose it's also a good deal if you're a school psychologist who doesn't want to deal with public school students.
This isn't Pennsylvania's private school subsidy. In the commonwealth, any public schools that provide transportation for their students must also provide transportation for private and charter school students in their district, which is handy for students but constitutes one more publicly funded subsidy for private and charter schools.
It's not just about the vouchers. There are many ways to have taxpayers help fund private schools.
Let's imagine that rather than instead of typing on a keyboard in the classroom, pulling up answers effortlessly from some unseen, students had to do something else.
To get to the source of their "assistance" teachers had to load them, just a few at a time, into large three-miles-to-the-gallon coach bus that would take them fifty miles to the "assistant." Along the way, the bus would pass over a major body of water, where it would dump the contents of the rolling indoor outhouse into that body of water. All so that a few students could get some help with a writing assignments or math instruction or just plain have someone do the assignments for them.
There's been much written about the intellectual, pedagogical, artistic, and philosophical issues of generative AI, which is all important when considering the mental impact of AI.
But maybe we should spend some more time talking about the actual physical impact on the world.
The amount of electricity used to power generative AI is literally incomprehensible. Researchers estimated that creating little old GPT-3 consumed 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity and generated 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, the equivalent of 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year. And that's just to set it up, before users actually started getting it to do its thing. Or before its keepers give it its latest update. Or consider this from an article published just last year at Scientific American:
But a peer-reviewed analysis published this week in Joule is one of the first to quantify the demand that is quickly materializing. A continuation of the current trends in AI capacity and adoption are set to lead to NVIDIA shipping 1.5 million AI server units per year by 2027. These 1.5 million servers, running at full capacity, would consume at least 85.4 terawatt-hours of electricity annually—more than what many small countries use in a year, according to the new assessment.
It's remarkable how few specifics are out there. The training phase and the asking-it-to-answer-a-prompt phase don't take the same amount, but how they compare seems fuzzy (writers seem to feel that the asking for response stage uses more). Besides sucking up electricity, which is not an infinite resource, that sucking has implications for the gases generated by meeting the need to produce more power. According to NPR, Google says its greenhouse gas emissions climbed nearly 50% over 5 years primarily because of AI data centers.
Here's a chart from Earth.org that provides a little perspective:
That bar for AI (the way taller than any other) represents only the training phase. If cars and people flying in private jets bothers you. generative AI should positively freak you right out.
Jesse Dodge, research analyst for Allen Institute for AI (founded by Paul Allen, so not tech haters), told NPR that a single query will use the electricity that could light one bulb for twenty minutes, which doesn't seem like a lot until you multiply it by a million times a day. That is way more than, say, a typical search--though of course tech companies have baked their AI into search functions, so you're generating an AI prompt all the time whether you want to or not. Some researchers advocate for solar power, but that doesn't solve all the problems.
It's not just the electricity and the carbon footprint. Data centers require huge amounts of water to keep cool. Cindy Gordon writing for Forbes says that the centers consume "significant" water, evaporating about 9 liters of water per kWh of energy used. AI's projected water usage, says Gordon, could hit 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027. That's on top of the water "withdrawn" for hydroelectric generation of the power that AI needs.
Right now, all of this is kept behind a curtain, out of view of the average AI user. But if we are going to use computer magic to answer prompts like "Write me a five page paper about Hamlet" or "Whip up my lesson plans next week," we really ought to understand the cost.
It's not just that generative AI doesn't produce magic results--it doesn't use magical techniques to get those results, either.
“Hope springs eternal but standing cannot be built on hope,” the opinion said. “With all due respect to the Cambridge Christian Fighting Lancers, there’s nothing to suggest that the team’s participation in a future football state championship is imminent or even likely.”Why thousands of Florida students are not being taught sex ed
The Democratic National Convention is over, but the party’s attack on families who want better education for their children has just begun. The Democrats’ platform, adopted last week, is even more radical than the 2020 version. It unequivocally states that the party opposes education-freedom policies that empower families. Paired with Kamala Harris’s running-mate pick of teachers’ union loyalist Tim Walz over school choice semi-supporter Josh Shapiro, it’s clear that Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, is calling the shots.
Yass and DeVos then play all the old hits. "While national Democrats kowtow to teachers' union bosses," the "overwhelming majority of public-school students" and "struggling to learn and falling behind." Some states are "empowering families to find better schools." These (not Democratic-run) states are "rejecting a union-first, students-last platform."
This tired baloney, indifferently sliced. The overwhelming majority of public school students are not falling behind. Choicer states are not empowering families, because they only get the choice that private schools allow them to have. They even write the laws to protect the private schools' "right" to discriminate freely against any students who are not the right faith, the right sexual orientation, even the right level of achievement. The supposedly-beloved right of the student to choose is subordinate to the right of the private school to operate--and discriminate-- as it wishes. This is not students first.
Nor does this sort of choice favor "better" schools. Decades of research tell us that charter schools are on the whole no better or worse than public schools. And research tells us that, at least by the lousy measures favored by reformsters, voucher results are far worse.
It is possible that by "better," Yass and DeVos mean "don't include Those Peoples' Children" or "freely indoctrinates students in my favorite religious ideology." In that case, we'll have to discuss the actual meaning of "better" when it comes to schools.
Nor do they address the feature of universal of vouchers that has become so popular--using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private school choices that the wealthy have already made, which rather falls outside the "non-wealthy folks need money to escape their failing public schools" narrative.
Yass and DeVos point to the victory of Glenn Youngkin and the defeat of Andrew Gillum and blame Weingarten for both. They do not explore any of the other issues in the elections. Though if they want to talk about the voters, they might discuss how no voucher policy has ever been approved by a state's voters, hence the need to install friendly politicians who will implement vouchers anyway.
They point to Philadelphia and Detroit to say, "Look at all the charter users there." Philly has its own history of disaster and mismanagement, but DeVos should well know the policies she helped promote to cripple Michigan schools so that choice could look more attractive. Tim Walz should know better, they suggest, because charters started in Minnesota and the union leader (I suppose they mean Albert Shanker) liked them fine, which he did before they turned into money-grubbing businesses instead of a chance to teachers to expand their work.
And Kamala Harris gets the old "shame shame" for sending her step-chldren to private school for $50K a year. How can she oppose policies that would low-income families to make similar choices. Except that no policy proposed by Yass and DeVos would give poor children those same choices. They will also attempt to shame Chicago union leaders and members.
Yass and DeVos cite a survey by EdChoice (formerly the Friedman Foundation), a group devoted to pushing choice policies. Unsurprisingly, their research shows that 75% of the public support Education Savings Accounts (super-vouchers) when asked a totally not loaded question. Also in that survey-- lowest choice policy support is for charters, and the big surprise--only about 25% of parents are aware of whether or not their state even has ESAs.
But if Yass and DeVos are so certain that there is massive public support for vouchers, why not push to put vouchers on the ballot? But here comes the finish.
Democratic leaders will apologize for not using your preferred pronouns, but they’re not sorry for requiring your children to attend a government school system that fails to teach what a pronoun is in the first place. Families are waking up to this fact, and they’ll increasingly wonder why the Democratic Party stands with teachers’ unions over struggling children. The party ditched Joe Biden out of cold electoral necessity. Maybe it should think about doing the same with Randi Weingarten.
Credit where credit is due--somebody wrote a sharp first line for that paragraph, even if it disconnected from reality.
It's the disconnection from reality that gets me about a piece like this. It's not just that I think they're wrong on the issues (though I surely do) but that their narrative is so bizarrely off target.
Who is this article for? Is it meant to convince someone, because to make useful, convincing statements about your opponents, it's handy to understand what actually motivates them. I suppose if you're super-rich and you're used to simply overpowering your adversaries, you don't spend any time trying to understand them. Maybe they were just trying to work out some thoughts they have, which is what I'm often up to here, but I'm a retired teacher with a blog, not a gazillionaire writing for publication in a serious albeit right-tilted publication.
I'm going to go with the "reinforcing right wing narrative" answer. That leaves the question of whether they actually believe this baloney or if they're just using it as a political posture. Neither is particularly admirable.
It cannot be healthy to let an obsession with Randi Weingarten haunt your days and nights. Hope these two feel better soon. Randi, too-- it has to be exhausting having the entire Democratic Party kowtowing to you all the time.
At The Hechinger Report, Suzanne Simons wants to complain about English Language Arts instruction in middle and high schools. It's a familiar kind of mess, but I promise a tiny twist at the end, which might almost make up for the length.
Simons is the Chief Literacy and Languages Officer at Carnegie Learning. Before that she worked at The Equity Lab, before that National Geographic Education, before that Literacy Design Collaborative, before that American Reading Company, before that adjust professor at Drexel, and she's done some consulting. All that since 2007. She has a couple of M. Ed.s and a doctorate in education leadership from the University of Pennsylvania. Her LinkedIn profile does not list any classroom work.
I'm not going to suggest that classroom teachers have nothing to learn from academics and edu-biz operators. But what Simons is both familiar and unhelpful.
Her main complaint is that "too many students are working on below-grade-level tasks using below-grade-level texts." This, she claims, will not be "preparing students for life after high school. Is it any wonder that reading scores haven't improved in 30 years."
I'm always puzzled by the idea that test scores should rise in perpetuity, like the stock market. Why, exactly, should that be? There are almost thirty years between my two oldest children and my two youngest-- should I expect that my young children will be smarter than the older ones? Mind you, I will never argue that teachers should ever, ever say, "Well, that's enough, I don't need to teach any better, harder, or more than I have so far." But the notion that every year's students should outperform the year before them treats students like assembly line toasters and not actual human beings.
To bolster her insistence on the value of grade-level materials, she uses an unfortunate source: the Opportunity Myth, a piece of faux research from TNTP, some slick baloney I've addressed here. It's a lot of silliness, but the key point here is that it doesn't actually support--or even address-- her point, which is that "grade-level tasks and texts should be the start — not the finish — to strong instruction." It focuses strictly on "proving" that many students get instruction with materials below grade level.
Simons also trots out the NAEP results (from 2019) showing 37% of 12th graders are "academically prepared for college in reading." By that she means that they have scored either proficient or advanced. But there is research missing here, like the 2007 study from NCES that showed that half of the students scoring a lowly Basic on the NAEP went on to complete a college degree (Bachelor's or higher). She also cites a report that employers think young people lack proper language skills.
Reformsters are great at defining problems, sometimes accurately and sometimes not so much. But does Simons have a solution.
She points to a study done by Learning Design Collaborative, an outfit that sells standards-based curriculum, professional development, and some other programs. Their CEO is John Katzman, founder of Noodle, the Princeton Review, and 2U. He sits on all sorts of boards, including the boards of the National Association of Independent Schools, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, and the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.
They have a board of senior advisors. Suzanne Simons sits on that board.
Let's talk about the study. It's a big, fat 240 pages, and I'm not going through it with a fine toothed comb. But here are some things that jump out.
There were two cohorts of schools involved. In the first cohort, two thirds of the teachers dropped out after the first year, and half of the remaining teachers dropped out after the second year. Cohort 2 didn't do much better. So, the primary effect of the study was that people stopped using the LDC model. Given that the original sampling was heavily elementary, this left them with a very tiny sample of middle and high school students--the very students that Simons is writing about in her piece.
The results are taken from SBA tests (you remember these Big Standardized Tests from back in the day) and then pushed through some magical math model that compares the students in the study with students not getting the LDC treatment.
Cohort 2 showed some "significant" results. These are presented as a gain of "four to nine months of learning," which is an academic baloney method of rendering test score gains (.25 of a standard deviation = 1 year). Because if we said X makes scores on a single large standardized test go up, people would not much care, but if we say they gained a year of learning--well, somehow that meaningless phrase strikes some folks as compelling. However, my own rule of thumb is that anyone who talks about days/months/years of learning is trying to sell something.
This study and the product it's pushing falls in the Standardized Closed Loop model of learning. It works like this:
Pat runs a group of fashion schools, and Pat personally believes that you are never fully dressed without a smile. Pat tests students and finds that only about half of them qualify as well dressed. So Pat trains the school's teachers to understand that you're never fully dressed without a smile, and the teachers implement the Smile Design Curriculum. They teach students various types of smiles they can perform and practice performing them and especially drive home that performing these smiles will be needed to score well on the Well Dressed Test.
Test time comes and--voila!--the scores go up! 9 months of fashion learning gained!
Set the standard. Train to the standard. Test to the standard. What's missing, of course, is any objective proof that you are fully dressed only if you wear a smile. What we have actually set here is a fairly limited proxy for being fully dressed. Students who forgot to wear pants still test as fully dressed because they are smiling. Students who are impeccably dressed, but bad at smiling, test as not fully dressed.
The Standardized Closed Loop model can be bolstered by blowing lots of smoke. Use a lot of jargon that's not very clear but sounds important. Stress that your system is standards-based, but don't talk about where the standards came from or what they are based on. Worked great for Common Core!
LDC manages all of this. And they've won awards.
But back to the article. What problems does Simons diagnose?
The culture of low expectations. Simons will trot out The Opportunity Myth again, claiming that students are being assigned below-grade-level work, because--
Teachers are not assigning grade-level tasks and texts (even though, she points out, the Common Core came out in 2010). These two subjects--expectations and grade-level texts--often bring non-teachers to the fore (like Common Core author David Coleman). Actual classroom teachers know there is a delicate balance here, a sweet spot you have to locate. Students need to experience success, but not be bored. Push them above their frustration level, and they will simply shut down, decide they're "not good at this s#$!" and it'll take you weeks to get them back. Standards fans have this habit of insisting that you get students to read on grade level by just, you know, insisting real hard.
The "reading on grade level" also skips over the whole matter of prior content knowledge. What "grade level" a student reads on is partly a factor of what the text is about. A student with love and knowledge of baseball will demonstrate a higher reading level for a text about baseball than he will for a text about Macedonian economic theory.
Simons also points out that this use of below-level text has increased since the pandemic. Well, duh. A teacher's job is to meet students where they are, and where many students have been since the pandemic has been not where students of that grade typically are.
Simons also faults teacher professional development. Well, yes. And also curriculum programs are weak and claim to be standards aligned when they really aren't, though how teachers are supposed to distinguish between faux and real standards alignment is not clear. I believe that she knows of an organization that can help, though I give her points for not specifically plugging LDC by name.
So to turn things around we should...?
Start with grade level tasks on day 1, not by day 180. Which leads one to ask--is there a difference between grade level on day 1 compared to day 180? How about grade level on day 180 of last year compared to day 1 of this year? Is grade level slightly different on every day of the 180?
Grade-level thinking is not a destination; it requires daily practice. Teachers (and curricula) need to assume that every student can read, think and write about rich and complex ideas using complex texts. Teachers and curriculum programs can target instruction to meet individual needs while engaging all learners in the same rigorous grade-level texts and tasks.
Yes, but what does that actually mean? And if every student is using the same text and doing the same task, exactly how does one "target" individual instruction? And have reformsters been trying to make "rigor" happen longer than "fetch" and if so, can we quit. Like many teachers, I spent many cumulative hours in PD listening to some presenter try to explain, clearly, what they meant by rigor. "No, it's not the same as 'hard.' No, it's not necessarily a higher reading level. No, it's not 'easy' with a lot of assigned tasks piled on top."
Shift from "what students consume to what they produce." Which is just an update of the old Common Core reformster focus on "deliverables." Let's focus on "outputs" and not "inputs." An oldie but a goodie, but if true, why do we care whether the texts are on grade level or not?
And of course standards training for teachers so that they "can deepen their understanding of the standards and be able to recognize students’ demonstrations of specific standards."
Research demonstrates that when a student is given grade-level tasks driven from grade-level standards, and their teacher is trained to teach those standards, both will rise to the challenge.
Is this supposed to refer to the LDC research? Because the large majority of teachers did not rise to the challenge at all. Is there any other research that could be used here?
So what have we got?
It's the ghost of Common Core. If you wondered whether that old "standards based" concept was still around, here's a whole organization promoting it. Swell.
However
One aspect of LDC's program (barely hinted at by Simons) is worthwhile. They focus on authentic writing. Write like a historian or scientist and, well, "like members of the academic and professional disciplines they will one day inhabit." Now, I don't know how well their materials actually deliver on this promise, nor do I know what they propose for students whose future disciplines will be blue collar work, but I will stand and applaud anyone who champions writing as authentic communication rather than a student performance of writing-like activities for an audience of nobody.
So that's the twist. In the midst of all this refried Common Core bean and baloney, there is something that could conceivably be quite swell. Okay, so I looked at one of their rubrics and wasn't overwhelmed, but still, it gives me hope that even these folks who have wandered so far into the weeds can still find something beautiful out in the swamp.
We can sleepwalk through this. At this point, we can recite all of the arguments from all the sides. The unfolding of news from the latest school shooting is barely denting social media. Hell, we're not even on track to beat last year's all time high of 82 school shootings (only 45 so far).
There are of course an assortment of details emerging. The shooter was questioned over online threats last year. A warning yesterday morning. The student who didn't let the shooter back into the classroom because they saw the gun. An AR-platform weapon (cue gun folks mansplaining what AR really does or does not mean, as if that matters in this context). Fast word to authorities because teachers had only just been given Centegix cards--basically a panic button you can carry in your pocket.
On social media yesterday, the usual thoughts and prayers from Georgia GOP legislators, led by Governor Kemp, followed by thousands of people pointing out that these same legislators, this same governor, had rolled back virtually every gun regulation in the state. Kemp's campaign ad resurfaced--the one where he playfully chats with a kid who wants to date his daughter, including threatening the boy with a gun. Har.
We could trot out the same old stats. The US leads the industrialized world in gun violence, gun possession. The states with more gun regulation have fewer gun deaths. The same old cartoons. That Onion headline, released yet again ("No Way To Prevent This," Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens). But today, less than 24 hours later, everyone (except the people in Georgia directly affected) has moved on.
It's the guns. It has always been the guns. It's the worship of a distorted view of the Second Amendment that says your right to own the means of killing other humans matters more than my child's right not to be killed. Your pursuit of happiness beats my life and liberty. Heck, just last week, a conservative federal district judge ruled that there's a Second Amendment right to own a machine gun. We're about to mark the anniversary of 9/11, an event so shocking that we still tightly regulate riding on an airplane.
It's the guns. No fourteen year old was going to school yesterday and killing four and injuring nine more with a knife. But we know that. Some of us just don't care enough to do something about it.
It's the guns. But it's not just the guns.
According to CNN, the three years with the most school shootings are 2021, 2022, and 2023. Which certainly tracks with the mental health crisis among young people that we've been talking about. And while lots of folks have theories (phones! absent fathers! space aliens!), we haven't really got a handle on it yet. Of course, the same people who love the Second Amendment and blame school shootings on mental illness also voted against expanding mental health services. (And if you think it's mentally ill people with guns who are responsible, wouldn't it make sense to put rules in place to make it harder for mentally ill people to get their hands on guns).
I have to believe that it's past time to look hard at our own culture. It's not just that the past fifteen or so years have seen the country more divided and polarized. It's how some of us talk about that polarization.
We're going to destroy the opposition, obliterate them, use power and force to dominate them and silence them, drive them out of the public arena. So many of our conflicts are discussed with the language of violence and war. This is not new, but the intensity and frequency is. There was a time when most folks understood that much of this was figurative language; nowadays, we have too many people who don't. The MAGA narrative is that we are living through apocalyptic times and the Enemy has to be stopped by any means necessary. We've seen a violent attack on the Capitol. We've seen so many campaign ads featuring guns blowing away some Bad Thing. We've heard leaders, nominally Christian ones at that, suggests that a revolution is coming and there might be blood.
We don't talk about how to get along with people that we think are wrong. We talk about how to wipe them out.
And if you are young, it has been like this for most of your life.
I fear that we are mostly numb to the constant rhetoric of violence, the tendency to frame everything as a war or a battle or a fight rather than simply a debate or disagreement. Debate and disagreement are not strong enough to stir the hearts of potential donors or supporters. So we get constant high drama, calls to action, declarations of doom unless we fight back hard.
Most of us kind of know better. Some of us do not. In a culture that glorifies violence, even presents it as a path to glory and achievement, some people buy in. Some just accept a worldview of existential dread and battle, like Lindsey Graham explaining that "joy doesn't exist in the real world." Some hunker down into angry powerlessness. And a few pick up a gun.
It's one of the things I appreciate about the Harris-Walz campaign--not just the hopefulness (I've been promised "hope" before, and I'm skeptical) but the minimal violent rhetoric, the absence of rhetoric suggesting that we face an apocalypse and we must be prepared destroy those who are a threat.
It's ironic-- as much as we love throwing around hypothetical and figurative violence, we've stopped trying to have meaningful conversations about the real stuff. Since Sandy Hook, when school children die in another shooting, we move on. Well, all of us who didn't lose someone. Nothing is going to happen; we've established that as a country we don't have the will to address the problem, the guns.
Because it's the guns. It's also a culture that makes violence seem like an excellent solution to conflict.
Shifting a culture may be even harder than trying to get politicians to show the will to get common sense gun regulation. But as citizens we need to work at both. I'm not about to look at another shooting and argue that this is not who we are; it very clearly exactly who we are. But that doesn't mean we couldn't become something better.
A top executive at Franklin Towne Charter High School said this year’s lottery was fixed, with students from certain zip codes shut out, and others eliminated because they — or their older siblings — exhibited academic or behavioral problems. Some children were also excluded because Franklin Towne’s chief executive didn’t want to take anyone from a particular charter elementary school, in the event he might have to pay for their transportation.
Patrick Field, Franklin Towne’s chief academic officer and an administrator at the school for 17 years, said the lottery tampering was ordered by Joseph Venditti, the longtime former CEO. Venditti abruptly resigned Feb. 27, citing health reasons, after Field alerted the charter’s board chair about the lottery issues.
So, we can call them "allegations," but they look an awful lot like "accurate reporting by someone on the inside." (Meanwhile, Field was immediately put on administrative leave by the school and filed his own lawsuit for retaliation by the employer).
Nor does it look like a recent aberration. The school opened in 2000. As reported by Carly Sitrin for Chalkbeat, the 2014 application that won the school a National Blue Ribbon Award reported school demographics of 2% Asian, 8% Black/African American, 14% Hispanic, and 76% white. The demographics of the city in which FTCHS operated-- 42% Black and 36% white.
The Board has said that they don't necessarily want to shut the school down-- just get them to shape up and cease "blatantly racist practices", and revocation hearing would be the way to do that. Instead, the proceedings have turned into a year long slog.
The hearing should have started in October of last year. But Franklin Towne challenged the particular hearing officer the board hired, Rudy Garcia. Folks expected a quick decision. Instead, no ruling for ten months. Meanwhile, Franklin Towne ladling more charges against the board, including a challenge to Pennsylvania's charter law, saying both that Garcia was biased and that he couldn't run the hearing ad decide the school's fate.
The case is in front of Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Anne Marie Coyle, a GOP judge (though a Democrat when she first ran for the seat). She's drawn some complaints from the Defender Association and a "not recommended" from the Philadelphia Bar Association. In 2020, when the state was trying to use emergency releases to thin out jail populations and slow COVID spread, Coyle denied every single request. She was a Philly Assistant DA from 1986 through 2002. And she was a member of the Philadelphia Academy Charter School Board of Trustees.
Coyle's work on this case has been less than spectacular. Kristen Graham reporting for the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that, according to court records, Coyle posed this question to school board president Reginald streamer-- if there had been lottery manipulation, "why would that cause a concern?" If they had broken the law and actively discriminated against minority children, why is that a big deal.
Streater, presumably after he had picked his jaw up off the floor, replied that the board takes seriously things like inequitable treatment of students and breaking the law.
Last week Coyle finally issued her order. Franklin Towne gets its request to remove Garcia, but not its challenge to sections of the charter law. Sher ordered a thirty-day stay of the revocation hearings, as well as a hearing in her courtroom to address further stays. If this all drags on too long, she'll require Franklin Towne to show her that they are complying with lottery-based admission requirements.
Coyle doesn't appear very sympathetic to the board. For one thing, the school is so valuable--
Realistically, should this successful high school be forced to close its doors, not only would the attending children, their parents, teachers, and administrators be adversely affected, so too would the entire community. This would permanently deprive all future students from the zip code(s) that the school board believes had been disregarded by Franklin Towne’s former administrators.
In other words, revoking the charter because it won't admit certain students would deprive those students of the chance to attend the charter that won't admit them.
Also, she thinks the whole revocation procedure is deficient and that the board was displaying "bullying and biased appearance." And this, from the Inquirer:
Coyle wrote that her order “aligns with the public interest of promoting trust in the legal system and the integrity of our public institutions and preventing overreaching of governmental functions.”
This seems to suggest that charter school authorizers are not supposed act like charter school authorizers, that somehow performing their actual function of holding charters to the rules and regulations that govern them is somehow an "overreach." You could almost assume that Judge Coyle doesn't quite understand how charter law works, if not for the fact that she sat on the board of a charter school.
The charter system was sold with the idea that charters would be accountable to authorizers, that they would have to earn the right to operate and continue earning it to maintain that operation. The Franklin Towne situation shows a different framing, one that is too common in the charter world--once established, the charter doesn't have to earn its continued existence. It doesn't need authorization from anyone; instead, authorizers build a case to close down the charter. Authorization to operate, once given, can never be withdrawn without protracted legal battles.
This is and the tradeoff of autonomy for accountability that we were promised. "Look," the charteristas said, "Authorizers watch over the charter school, and if at any point they determine the school is not living up to the rules of its charter, the authorizers just shut it down." Instead what we've got is, "The authorizers okayed this school twenty years ago, and they have no right to take that away."
Who knows how the Franklin Towne charter situation will work out. One hopes that, at best, they have actually started to function according to the rules, though what that will do to their remarkable "success" would be a whole other story. But the whole business is a fine demonstration of how the charter school system we were sold is not how things actually operate.