The Undemocratic School Primer

There are many ways to divide up the sides of the education debates. One is between those who believe in civic democratic ideals and those who do not.

We're talking about two very different premises, and how they result in entirely different educational approaches.

Premise 1: All human beings have equal worth and are equally deserving of autonomy, opportunity, power, and privilege.

Under this premise, the school system would exist to provide opportunity to all students. Each student would be entitled to the chance to pick a path and pursue it to the extent of their ability. The school system would exist for the uplift of all young humans, and one of our big challenges would be to get resources to all students, regardless of their socio-economic origins. That would include special resources for students with special needs as well as resources targeted for particular cultural and community settings. 

For much of US history, this has been our stated premise, even if we have had a hard time working through the implications of that premise and living up to them.

Premise 2: Some human beings have more value than others, and are more deserving of autonomy, power, and privilege. 

This premise takes us to a very different place. It envisions a society with various layers; some people are destined to be Betters, to live at the top, and others are destined to be Lessers, to serve as meat widgets or other specific functions in society. In fact, it argues, much of the discontent and difficulty in society comes from people trying to live outside their proper roles.

In that world, schools exist not for uplift, but for sorting, to help everyone find and settle happily into their proper place. Betters may learn arts and culture and what we think of as a broad liberal education. But future meat widgets need to learn marketable skills, job skills that will make them useful to their future corporate-boss Betters. Betters get privilege and power because they are entitled to it; Lessers must work and provide value (as determined by Betters) to "earn" every bit of privilege and power.

For Lessers, obedience and compliance are important. For the most extreme cases, children and women are automatically Lessers who are expected to comply and obey. Schools are supposed to reinforce that message, reminding students that they are under the sole and complete control of their parents and must never, ever question that control. It will be good practice for them when they enter the workforce.

Because individuals are of value, everything in life must be navigated on an individual basis. Every person should be "free" to take their proper place in society; to try to "help" them by lifting them above their station or providing them with privileges they haven't earned is wrong, a crime against God and nature, and will (some folks are sure) simply make those artificially uplifted person unhappy and dissatisfied (like all those women who pursued a career instead of taking their natural place as a home-staying baby-maker). 

That emphasis on compliance and obedience also manifests in a belief that there is one true correct answer to all questions, and so education is about transmitting the Correct Answers. That helps teach compliance to an outside authority as well as locking in one natural order with everyone in their proper place. 

When someone like Betsy DeVos argues for school choice as a way for each student to find their proper fit, they're talking about tiers of schools set up to handle the different proper natural tiers of society. Future meat widgets don't need to learn calculus or read Shakespeare. The DeVosian crowd definitely does not mean that there should be all sorts of different schools (like wacky lefty schools or Islamic academies), but just different layers of schools that teach the correct christianist truth appropriate to the place of that set of students in the social order.

For Betters, things go on much as always-- if you have wealth and privilege and power, that proves you deserve wealth and privilege and power, so carry on. For Lessers, the message is that you need to earn the right to even get by in your proper place.

Further complicating matters-- nobody believes that they are a Lesser. It's always Those People Over There.

None of this is new, but these days Betterism believers are enjoying plenty of power, and they are aggressively pursuing all the Lessers that they feel have snuck out of place. LGBTQ people should disappear. Women should get busy making babies. Young human future meat widgets should start working right now. Everyone ought to be properly worshipping the conservative christianist God. People from non-Caucasian countries should get to their proper place, which is Not Here. Everyone should stop invoking "civil rights" to move Lessers above their proper station. Tech world brogliarchs and other Betters should not have any restraints put on them. And schools should be telling students to always obey their parents in all things. 

There's not really any point to arguing that this is all undemocratic-- these folks don't particularly believe that democracy is a good idea. And it's not always easy to talk through the issues with them because some of the words have different meanings; we can all say that every child should get the education they deserve or that is best suited to them, but we mean different things. 

Nor are all school choice fans bettersists. I'm not even sure that some school choice fans really understand who they've teamed up with.

Betterists pose a real challenge to any sort of discussion or debate about education in this country, because they hold a fundamentally different view of the purpose of education, a profoundly different idea about how the country is supposed to work. I have met, personally and virtually, plenty of people I disagree with, but with whom I share some basic values. However, I don't see a bridge to the Betterists and their belief that some people deserve less than others. And I suspect that may be an education policy sticking point in this country for a few years to come. 

The Teacher Who Helped Launch An Entertainment Empire

If you watch the hit Netflix series Stranger Things (I'm a few seasons behind, because my tolerance for ick is limited), you may have noticed a new-to-tv face in the new season. It's a teacher, and she has some great things to say about teaching. Co-creator Ross Duffer explained the casting choice on Instagram

Miss Harris is played by Hope Hynes Love.
She was our high school drama teacher.

High school was rough for me and my brother. But Hope saw something in us we didn’t see in ourselves — and she helped give us the confidence to not only survive those four years, but to move to LA and chase our dreams.

Shoutout to all the teachers out there making a difference.

And please… let’s prioritize the arts in schools. ✌️

How cool is that?

Love is currently the artistic director at East Chapel Hill High School in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but she taught the Duffer brothers back when she was teaching theater back at C.E. Jordan High School in Durham Public Schools. 

Netflix Tudum interviewed the veteran educator, who explained how it happened:

The boys — that’s my phrase for [Matt and Ross Duffer] — and I have been in touch since they graduated. When Season 4 came out, I was like, “Guys, you’re amazing.” And they’re like, “Oh, thank you so much. We actually thought we had a cameo for you in [Season 4], but it didn’t work out. We had to cut it.” And I looked at my husband, and I was like, “Yeah, how nice are they? This is a lovely lie. They’re so gracious.”

And then — I’m going to say December 2023 or January 2024 — I got a little message from them. They’re like, “Hey, I know you’re really busy, but if you think you can make the time, it’ll probably be in the summer, and can we make it happen? We think we might have a small role for you in the next season. Do you think you could do it?”

I, of course, wrote them back and said, “Boys, listen. Yes, I certainly would make that work. But I have to tell you, you could put me on a stage anywhere in the world, and I’m confident. … But I haven’t done camera work since I put myself through graduate school. Who knows whether I’m up to snuff anymore. You might want to audition me. I’m happy if that’s the process I need to go through, but as long as you promise that you’ll fire me if I suck, as was the contract we had when you were my students, I absolutely trust you. Let’s see.” And they're like, “Yeah, whatever. Here’s the casting director. She’ll be in touch with you.”

I was hedging at the beginning, and they were all in, which is lovely of them.

Love did not actually audition, but she did call in an old acting friend and had to "take my own advice, which is the worst thing as a teacher." Asked what the appearance meant to her, she explained

It’s everything. You always want your students to look back on their time with you as a valuable use of their youth. That the things that they invested in you and your program have served them well. It’s lovely when they reach back and go, “I’m doing this cool thing. Do you want to come see if you think it’s cool?” And I’m like, “Absolutely.” Why would that change just because you’re not 16 anymore, and you’re 30? Yes, I want to come see your cool thing. Isn’t that the deal between us?

Isn't that the deal, indeed. I'm also fully impressed by her explanation of her attitude toward educating her students. The interviewer asked if she was surprised by the Duffers' success, but her answer hits at the heart of educating students in any field:

I train all of my students so that if they ever are doing this professionally, they’re ready. I’ve always said, “I don’t teach high school actors. I teach artists who happen to be of high school age.”

What I often say at my beginning level is, “If you never do this, you’re going to learn some skills that will serve you well in your life. And if you do this for forever, I want to start you the way I wish somebody had started me” — with a solid foundation and with an understanding of what this takes and taking themselves seriously. Your work doesn’t [only] matter in graduate school or when you get your first Netflix gig.

The quality of your work and your reputation and integrity as an artist is now in how you’re showing up in class, how you’re showing up every day … how you talk about somebody who gets cast, and you don’t get cast. That’s who you are. It’s not somewhere in the future, it’s now. And you’re not an actor once you get a part on a Netflix show. You’re an actor if you’re showing up, and you’re doing the work every single day, period. You don’t need anybody else outside of you to tell you [that] you are something. You are it if you’re doing it. Full stop.

Yes. And that's true for teaching a writer or a scientist or a welder. One of the worst mistakes schools make is to treat students as if they are children just putting in time before they start the real work of their lives. That attitude excuses treating them as less-than-completely human. Their life isn't in the future-- it's going on right now. And students themselves often need to be reminded of that.

No mention in any articles of how Love's students did on their Big Standardized Test scores. 

AL: Not That Choice!

Tommy Tuberville, who is somehow a contender for the governorship of Alabama, joins the roster of school choice advocates who are actually against school choice.

Tuberville has been an impassioned advocate for school choice. "School choice brings the power of the free market, which is what we’re supposed to be, to our education system," "Coach" Tuberville bloviated during one speech in January 2024, in which he explained that his passionate concern for education for every child was why he ran for Senate. In September 2024 he unleashed more of the same:

School choice also shifts control away from Washington to parents. We can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach to education. For some students, a charter school might be best. For others, homeschooling is the ideal learning environment. For others, the local public school is the best path. Parents know their kids best and have the innate right to make the best decision for their child.

Except that some parents shouldn't have any choice at all.

Lasat week, Tuberville decvided to join in on the discussion about whether or not to approve the Islamic Academy of Alabama. And it was not to declare that school choice is a critical part of a bright future for every child. In fact, he had this to say about the school, which he says is "a tool used to influence young people and convert them to Islam (from AL.com).

In the future, in a year, I’ll be the governor, and I’ll be damned if we’re going to do that in the state of Alabama. We’re going to protect the people of Alabama; we’re going to protect our constitution. We’re going to protect our state and we’re going to protect our country.

Islam, says Tuberville (and, sadly, many of his supporters) is a "conquering cult" that is trying to take over the country, and in an appearance on the how-is-still-here bottom-feeding Infowars he vowed to fight it as governor. He told the host "there was no room for Muslims in Alabama and called the religion a cult that was a threat to America."

The school was seeking a zoning variance so it can move to a larger site in a city next to the city of its current location; in other words, Tuberville and company were not just attacking a hypothetical school, but an existing one with real live human students. Assistant principal Stacy Abdein pointed out that this kind of rhetoric demonizes and endangers those young humans.

When public officials spread dangerous myths about innocent students and families, they embolden hostility and increase the likelihood of harassment or targeted threats, undermining the safety and well being of our entire school community.

The school has been in ts current location for around thirty years. But some of us are feeling our MAGA oats. Protestors are the meeting held signs about the 100 year plan, a supposed plan for Muslims to turn the US into an Islamic nation in a century. Another speaker cited the supposed takeover of Britain by Muslims, echoing the idea in Trump's new National Security Strategy document which says Europe is in trouble because white folks are becoming a minority there. 

The city decided not to approve the school, citing zoning concerns and not, say, the virulent racism displayd by residents and an actual United States Senator. The school has announced it will stop trying. Meanwhile Tuberville (previously noted 2023's Dumbest Senator of the Year) is somehow still a viable candidate for governor. 

School choice? Tuberville is solidly against it, unless school choice means only choices that he approves of for people he approvs of. And despite what theory of choice advocates pursue, time after time, particularly in MAGAfied localles, this is what choice looks like. 

 

ICYMI: Chorus Edition (12/7)

The CMO of the Institute (that's Chief Marital Officer) sings in a community chorus because, among other reasons, she objectively has a voice much like that of an angel. It is one of those small town community things that we are able to enjoy, an example of how the people in a small town come together in a variety of different ways. Part of what is essential to the small town life is that you meet a lot of individuals in more than one context; that goes double for teachers. It's rare that you know a person just one way. The guys I used to buy my tires from grew up down the street from me and I used to babysit them; later I taught their children in school. And until they went out of business last month, I bought my tires from them, just like I used to buy them from their father. I have a million stories like that. Everyone in a small town does.

So anyway, this afternoon the CMO will sing with a community chorus an assortment of Christmas tunes and it will be lovely. December is an especially busy time for musicians. Please remember to show some appreciation to whatever musicians are lighting up your community.

Now for this week's list.

A Quiet Revolution Is Improving Schools

At The Progressive, Jeff Bryant points out that the community school movement is showing some real gains, even as the regime is not interested in supporting them.

How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year

Jill Barshay at Hechinger Report takes us through the timeline of the regime's assault on actual education data and how that is taking us into a world in which we'll be flying blind when it comes to knowing what is really going on in schools.

Quinta Brunson wants thousands of Philly kids to have free school field trips

Philadelphia Inquirer has the story of Brunson's new field trip fund for Philly schools. Well done.

Kansas City tripled its share of Latino teachers in recent years so students can 'feel seen'

In 2019, just 1% of educators were Latino. The school district actually did something about it.

Which Parents Get “Parental Rights?” In This Ohio School, It’s Those Who Hate LGBTQ+ People

Parental rights are only for certain parents; that's always been a feature of the movement. Kelly Jensen at Bookriot shows how that plays out in one particular district.

Youth. For Christ? At School?

Youth For Christ is yet another group that believes the door is wide open for them to start recruiting in schools. Nancy Flanagan takes a look.

What is Heritage's "Phoenix Declaration"?

Several pieces have been written about this slice of baloney, but if you'd like one more look, here's a perspective from Steve Nuzum.

First Focus on Children’s Bruce Lesley Decries Trump’s Abandonment of Our Society’s Vulnerable Children

Jan Resseger looks into Bruce Lesley's dynamite piece about abandoning children.

‘An Education’ by Diane Ravitch — My Review

Gary Rubinstein offers his review of Diane Ravitch's newest book. Do you have your copy yet? Get on it.

Teaching in a Season of Fascism

Matt Brady argues that when cruelty is policy, teachers are called to do some of the most important work in the country.

50 years after the birth of special education, some fear for its future under Trump

Happy birthday, Special Ed! Let's hope you've got a few more years left. Cory Turner looks at the occasion for NPR.

The Case Against Standardized Testing

Cameron Dick's article will tell you nothing that you already know. But this piece was published at Zen Parent, and if you are looking for something to share with someone who is new to the issue, this is a fine choice.

3 states are challenging precedent against posting the Ten Commandments in public schools – cases that could land back at the Supreme Court

Charles Russo and Lydia Artz provide an overview of the current cases stacked up against posting the Ten Commandments in public schools.  At the Conversation.

Jeffrey Yass, Pennsylvania’s richest man, details how school vouchers drive his massive political spending operation in rare interview with Washington Post

The Washington Post ran an interview with Yass, but I don't have a WaPo subscription any more. However, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a piece about the WaPo piece, and it captures many of the features of this rotten billionaire. 

Talking With Paul Kedrosky

Paul Krugman talks to Kedrosky and comes up with a pretty good explanation of AI stuff and why they are writing for a 37 year old guy on Reddit.

AI is Destroying the University and Learning Itself

If you want a really depressingly apocalyptic view of AI at the college level, Ronald Purser at Current Affairs has got you covered.

The People Outsourcing Their Thinking to AI

This Atlantic piece by Lila Shroff is worth it just for the coinage "LLeMmings." I love a good made word.

Flock Uses Overseas Gig Workers to Build Its Surveillance AI

From Wired, a reminder that sometimes AI isn't AI at all-- just a bunch of humans hiding behind a screen.

The New Anxiety of Our Time Is Now on TV

Ted Gioia connects Pluribus, fear, and the trouble with AI. 

Penn State Exceptionalism Meets Reality

What happens when a school (or, say, any organization) discovers that it's not really as exceptional as it likes to think it is? Full disclosure-- this is by Ben Jones, my nephew.

This week at Forbes.com, I took a look at two new challenges to the wall between church and state, part of the quest to feed even more tax dollars to private religious schools. Honestly, more people should have read this and paid attention, but at least a few months from now I can say, "I told you so."

This week's palate cleanser is Gregory Hines paying tribute to Gene Kelly

Feel free to sign up for my newsletter. 

Reverse Centaurs, AI, and the Classroom

Cory Doctorow gave us "enshittification" to explain much of what has gone wrong, and he is already moving on to explain much of what we suspect is wrong with the push for AI. There's a book coming, but he has already laid out the basic themes in a presentation that he shared with his on-line audience. It doesn't address teaching and education directly, but the implications are unmistakable.

We start with the automation theory term "centaur." A centaur is a human being assisted by a machine. Doctorow cites as an example driving a car, or using autocomplete. "You're a human head carried around on a tireless robot body." 

A "reverse centaur" is a machine head on a human body, "a person who is serving as a squishy meat appendage for an uncaring machine." Here's his example, in all its painful clarity:

Like an Amazon delivery driver, who sits in a cabin surrounded by AI cameras, that monitor the driver's eyes and take points off if the driver looks in a proscribed direction, and monitors the driver's mouth because singing isn't allowed on the job, and rats the driver out to the boss if they don't make quota.

The driver is in that van because the van can't drive itself and can't get a parcel from the curb to your porch. The driver is a peripheral for a van, and the van drives the driver, at superhuman speed, demanding superhuman endurance. But the driver is human, so the van doesn't just use the driver. The van uses the driver up.

Doctorow explains that tech companies are highly motivated to appear to be growth industries, and then explains how they're selling AI as a growth story, and not a pretty one. AI is going to disrupt labor.  

The promise of AI – the promise AI companies make to investors – is that there will be AIs that can do your job, and when your boss fires you and replaces you with AI, he will keep half of your salary for himself, and give the other half to the AI company.

The thing is-- AI can't do your job. So the radiology department can't fire all the radiologists and replace them with AI to read scans-- they have to hire someone to sit and check the AI's work, to be the "human in the loop" whose job is to catch the rare-but-disastrous case where the AI screws up. 

That last radiologist is a reverse-centaur, and Doctorow cites Dan Davis' coinage for the specific type-- the Last Radiologist is an "accountability sink." Says Doctorow, "The radiologist's job isn't really to oversee the AI's work, it's to take the blame for the AI's mistakes."

In education, there is potential for AI to create centaurs and reverse centaurs, and I think the distinction is useful for parsing just how horrible a particular AI application can be. 

The most extreme version of a reverse centaur is any of the bullshit AI-driven charter or mini-schools, like the absurd Alpha school chain that promises two hours on a screen will give your child all the education they need. Just let the AI teach your child! All of these models offer a "school" that doesn't need teachers at all--just a "guide" or a "coach" there to be make sure nothing goes wrong, like an AI that offers instruction on white racial superiority or students who zone out entirely. The guide is a reverse centaur, an accountability sink whose function is to be responsible for everything the AI screws up, while allowing the investors in these businesses (and they are always businesses, usually run by business people and not educators) to save all sorts of costs on high-priced teachers by hiring a few low-cost guides.

For teachers, AI promises to make you a high-powered centaur. Let the AI write your lessons, correct your papers, design your teaching materials. Except that AI can't do any of those things very reliably, so the teacher ends up checking all of the AI's work to make sure it's accurate. Or at least they should, providing the human in the loop. So the teacher ends up as either a reverse centaur or, I suppose, a really incompetent reverse centaur who just passes along whatever mistakes the AI makes. 

Almost nobody is sales-arguing that AI can make teaching better, that an AI can reach students better than another human; virtually all arguments are centered on speed and efficiency and time-saving, and while that is appealing to teachers, who never have enough time for the work, the speed and efficiency argument is appealing to management because to them speed and efficiency mean fewer meat widgets to hire, and in a field where the main expense is personnel, that's appealing. 

Public schools don't have investors to make money from cutting teachers (though private and charter schools sure do), but for AI businesses (as with all other ed tech businesses before them) cannot help but salivate at just how huge the education market could be, a $6 billion mountain just waiting to be chewed up. So education gets an endless barrage of encouragements to join the AI revolution. Don't miss out! It's inevitable! It's shiny! To teachers, the promise that it will convert them into powerful cybernetic centaurs. To managers, the promise that it will convert teachers into more compliant and manageable reverse centaurs, controlled by a panel on the screen in your office. 

And both snookered, because an AI can't do a teacher's job. "Don't worry," the boosters say. "There will always be a human in the loop." Of course there will be--because AI can't do a teacher's job. The important question is whether the AI will serve the teachers or be served by them. As a teacher in the classroom being pushed to incorporate AI ("C'mon! It's so shiny!!"), you should be asking whether the tech will be empowering you and giving you new teacher arms of steel, or will it be converting you to some fleshy support for a piece of tech. 

Right now, far more pressure is being put on the Be A Fleshy Appendage side of the discussion. Here's hoping teachers find the strength to stand up to that pressure.

Oh, and a side point that I learned in Doctorow's article that's worth remembering the next time a company wants to offer AI-generated materials--  the courts have repeatedly ruled that AI-generated materials cannot be copyrighted (because they aren't human-made). 

OK: That Anti-Trans Essay and OU's Shame

Samantha Fulnecky tried to bullshit her way through an assignment and got called out on it. Now she would like to raise the holiest of hells.

Discussion about the University of Oklahoma junior's failing grade has exploded in one more wave of right wingers complaining that they are the victims of oppression. Here's the break down of what actually happened in this bullshit flap, plus all the distractions that have been tossed into the mix.

University of Oklahoma graduate teaching assistant Mel Curth gave the assignment. Curth’s assignment asked students to write 650-word reaction papers “demonstrating that you read the assigned article, and [including] a thoughtful reaction to the material presented in the article,” according to the assignment instructions circulating online. “Possible approaches to reaction papers include: 1. A discussion of why you feel the topic is important and worthy of study (or not). 2. An application of the study or results to your own experiences.”

As a long time English teacher, I recognize the critical part of this assignment-- "demonstrating that you read the assigned article." We have all done this; you want the student to actually do the assigned reading, so you assign some sort of response requiring the student to show that they actually read the article.

Fulnecky didn't meet that requirement (her text is included in this article). Teachers will recognize the sort of constructions she used. "This article is very thought-provoking and caused me to thoroughly evaluate the idea of gender and the role it plays in our society." Later she refers to "articles like this," but the only specific reference is to a mention of peer teasing. There is no direct reference to the piece she was supposed to have read. 

When giving my students an assignment to write in response to a work, I would tell them to be specific. "If I could not guess what work you are writing about based on the references in your essay, then you have not been specific enough." Fulnecky utterly fails on that count. Nor does she offer any sorts of support for her statements. That's not strictly a requirement of the assignment, but it is a reasonable expectation of a college junior majoring in psychology. 

The bulk of the essay is anti-trans screed and assertion that right-wing christianist Biblical conservatism. It includes charges of being "demonic" and the assertion that bullying is actually a good thing. 

Curth told Fulnecky, "Please note that I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs, but instead I am deducting points for you posting a reaction paper that does not answer the questions for this assignment, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence in a scientific class, and is at times offensive" and goes on to push back on some of Fulnecky's assertions about gender, and while I get the desire to correct someone who has wandered way out past the weeds in a science-based course, life would have been simpler for Curth to simply say, "You didn't address the assignment at all. F."

Curth is trans, and we will probably never know if Fulnecky was simply trying to bait Curth in order to create a narrative about evil college professors oppressing poor christianists. But Fulnecky immediately looped in Turning Point USA. Governor Kevin Stitt, and former education dudebro Ryan Walters.

Oh, and also her mother, Kristi Fulnecky. Mom is an attorney who has, among other things, defended two January 6 insurrectionists. She's a right wing podcaster who served in politics, including a stint in combat with local government when they went after her for taxes owed because she operated a business without a license; just a political witch hunt, she claimed. During the height of the pandemic, she sued over mask mandates and sued Springfield Public Schools over their hybrid re-opening plan. As a local councilwoman, she regularly blocked anyone who corrected her. She apparently is also good at threatening legal-ish letters. 

In other words, Mom has fully mastered the art of aggressive victimhood.

So maybe Samantha Fulnecky is really upset about her grade. Or maybe she is launching a career in the moral panic industry (she's already made it to Fox).

But meanwhile, the University of Oklahoma has shamed itself by benching Curth and ensuring "no academic harm to the student from the graded assignments." Meanwhile, all the usuals are praising Fulnecky's armor of God and touting this is as an example of evil professors oppressing conservatives and Governor Stitt found it all "deeply concerning."

Lord knows what Fulnecky plans to do with her degree, but maybe she won't need it if she cashes in on the right wing outrage circuit. Maybe she's just an apple that fell right next to the tree. In the meantime, I know the University of Oklahoma is in Oklahoma, but surely they can do better than bending to this kind of baloney. 

Glenn Beck's Patriotic AI Zombie

Well, something like this was inevitable.

The AI zombie market has been growing steadily. Schoolai caused a stir by unleashing an AI avatar of Anne Frank for classrooms as just one of their offerings of zombie historical figures for schools. In fact, there are now more outfits offering AI avatars for student use than I can even delve into here. Some are especially terrible; Wisdom of the Ages lets you chat (text only) with some big names of history, and within the first sentence, the Einstein avatar was talking about "he" rather than "I." Their "Adolph Hitler" also lapsed quickly into third person. Humy offers a Hello History app that promises all sorts of "engaging historical simulations" and an "in-depth and personal interaction with the historical figure of your choice." And don't forget the company that offers you the chance to take a writing class taught by a dead author. 

Then there's this horrifying ad from 2wai that promises to keep zombie Grandma around so that generations of your family can enjoy her. 

Good lord. And that's just one of many examples of the AI of Dead Relatives. I'm not sure what is worse-- the idea of dragging Grandma out of the grave or the idea that a few lines of code and some scanned letters and (2wai promises) a three minute conversation are all that's needed to capture a person's essence. No, actually, the worst part is that this encourages to understand that other people are only "real" to the extent that we perceive them and they reflect our expectations of them. These are simulations that amount to us speaking to our own reflections, empty images with no inner lives of their own. Simulacrums that exist only to provide us with an experience; voices that are silent except to speak to us. What the heck does that say about how we related to Grandma while she was alive?

Into this field of the damned comes Glenn Beck. 

Beck claims to have the "largest private collection of American founding documents in the world, surpassed only by the Library of Congress and the National Archives in Washington, D.C." And now Beck has plans for those documents, and they don't involve handing them over to a museum. Instead, on January 5, 2026, he will launch the Glenn and Tania Beck Foundation for American History, a privately funded trust, to make his collection of over a million documents accessible to everyone. 

It's the "next phase" of his career (post The Blaze), his "next disruption" and "creative venture." His foundation has created "the first independent, proprietary, AI-driven American historical library." It will come complete with its own AI zombie librarian named George, "built from the writings of George Washington himself. The writings of the Founders. The thousands of sermons that they heard from their church pulpits. The books that they -- they read. And the principles they lived by."

George is going to teach you the Real Truth, Beck promises. In fact, he guarantees that his AI will generate everything without hallucination or bias, which you might think is absolutely impossible for an AI (because it is), but Beck assures us that George is "contained within a secure, isolated server, where every document is memorized verbatim." Is there any other way that documents are stored on a hard drive?

This is not ChatGPT. This is not Wikipedia. This is verified, factual, memorized, first source truth.

Beck says that George will teach the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the civics. Beck says this project "will change EVERYTHING about education." George will counteract all those lies your teacher taught you. It's a proprietary AI database that will permanently preserve "the physical evidence of America's soul." 

There are at least two possibilities. One is that George will be a Washington-lite AI zombie that will, in fact, hallucinate and spew bias just like any other AI because Beck doesn't know what he's talking about. The other is that George has taken an old version of Jeeves and slapped a tri-corner hat on him, and that this is just a digital library with a search function because Beck doesn't understand AI, but he knows that it's a hot marketing term right now.

At least three outfits claim to have worked on an AI Zombie George Washington (here, here, and here) and they are all pretty much baloney. It makes sense that AI hucksters are going to go after the low-hanging fruit of public domain persons for zombiefication, and it makes sense that Beck, a seasoned patriotic grifter, would follow that path.

But boy is this shit a bummer, because Beck is going to wave his Giant Library around and convince a bunch of suckers that he can tell them the Real Truth about our nation's founders with even more unearned authority than he already deploys. But if AI zombies are good for anything, it's grift, and we had better steel ourselves for more of it. And please, God, keep it out of our children's classrooms.

School Sports

I am not a sports guy. I played some playground league softball way back in the day, and that's about it for competitive team sports. I'm married to a former collegiate swimmer who used to do triathlons and marathons, and the board of directors really loves cross country. For years, one of my extra jobs at my school was announcing football games, and I was a big supporter of all our teams, especially those in which my own students were involved.

NW PA is sports territory. We start them early and take them seriously (and not always in a developmentally appropriate way). We've had arguably disproportionate success for a district our size-- state-level contending teams, players who went on to college and pro success. My school loved a good pep rally, and I nudged even my most non-sporty students toward approaching these gatherings with an open mind. I've always thought school spirit (which around here is mostly focused through sports) is a way to practice being part of something bigger than yourself.

These days, I have concerns.

High school sports have been transforming for the past couple of decades, driven by parents who see sports as a service provided for them to get their child a scholarship (and maybe fame and fortune). You can see the effects in the trouble getting officials to work events and in how few coaches are now from outside the teaching staff. There are certainly non-teacher coaches who do good work, but non-teacher coaches too often don't grasp that 1) they are teaching students and 2) that these students have lives outside of their sport. 

Some of this intensity seems to be trickling down from college and pro sports. My daughter graduated from Penn State, and I have other family that went to Pitt, so I'm familiar with what fairly... intense... fandom looks like. One of my nephews is a Penn State grad and sports writer who still covers his alma mater and posts like this one show he has kept his perspective. But goodness, do some fans take their college and pro teams very seriously.

And while I'm not sure the intensity has changed, I think how I feel about it in this moment has shifted.

Sports love is very much a tribal thing. Decades ago one of our football captains stood up in a pep rally and declared "I hate [rival's name] because... because... they're [rival's name]." He still gets grief about it, but it's actually nice shorthand, more honest that trying to pretend that [rival's name] has some sort of odious quality.

Which is the way it usually works. You pick out That Team You Hate and declare that they have That Detestable Trait that makes it okay to hate them. You love and support your team, sometimes to the point that you excuse terrible behavior by team members. You go way past loyalty and make the team a critical part of your identity to the point that any that attacks the team attacks you. 

Thing is, we are living through a demonstration of how tribalism can be bad for a nation. What is MAGA except a team in the game of socio-political sports with the most rabid fan base ever? We're not supposed to inject any nuanced reality into the discussion of their team's honored icons (Dear Leader, a certain version of US history) and we aren't supposed to acknowledge any nuanced positive aspects of the teams they hate (LGBTQ, immigrants). 

So I'm not really enjoying the tribalism of sports these days. It no longer seems like a harmless diversion over inconsequential contests. It seems too much like a mirror of the kind of toxic tribalism that is seeping into every aspect of US life, and I'd just rather not.

I was a band guy. Something I would tell band members or sports-involved students when they seemed a little into the Hate That Team groove was this-- Out there, when you're doing your thing at this event, those people on the other side are the only people in that place who really understand what you go through to do what you do. Not the fans, not the people screaming for you to "Kick those @!##%^'s asses." 

I'm not arguing excessive sports fanning is remotely a cause of the current tribalism cursing our nation. But I am suggesting that the worst kind of sports fandom echoes the worst kind of politics, and maybe we want to be a little more thoughtful about the kind of sportsthusiasm that we foster in young humans. If sports are supposed to build character-- well, as a nation we are suffering from a bit of character deficiency and maybe we should keep that in mind. 

FL: Schools of Hope and Charter Property Grab

Florida is implementing a whole new way for charter schools to hoover up taxpayer dollars.

Schools of Hope started out in 2017 (the bill originally called them "Schools of Success" but someone must have decided against overpromising). The idea was the ultimate in targeting struggling public schools; the idea is that when you find a school that is struggling, you don't give them additional resources or support, but instead pay some charter school to come into the neighborhood. 

The scheme was cooked up by then-House Speaker Richard Corcoran and then-Rep. Manny Diaz, two long-time opponents of public education in Florida. And they got some help-- according to Gary Fineout, an AP reporter who has covered many Florida crazy-pants education stories:

Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and chairman of the House Education Committee, said legislators met with charter school operators and asked what it would take for them to set up schools in the neighborhoods now served by traditional public schools. He said one answer was that they needed help paying for new buildings to house the school.

Emphasis mine-- we'll come back to that. Cathy Boehme of the Florida Education Association pointed out the obvious:

You are saying funding matters. You're saying good strategies matter. And then you turn around and keep those strategies from schools that you could save from these turnaround options.

Yup. "We've found schools that need help," said the legislature. "Let's give that help to someone else!"

However, Schools of Hope did not take off. Florida was hoping to attract national charter chain action, but it turns out that national charter chains understand that in neighborhoods where public schools struggle, charter schools will also struggle (see also: sad story of Tennessee's Achievement School District). The League of Women Voters attributes the program's struggles to four factors:

• Facility costs remained prohibitive even with 25% loan caps and state subsidies  
• Building schools from scratch takes years of planning, approval, and construction 
• Local opposition emerged in some communities skeptical of outside operators 
• Easier markets existed elsewhere for charter operators seeking expansion

The legislature, more interested in nursing the charter industry than the public school system, tried modifying the law. They expanded the range of public schools that could trigger Schools of Hope, both in terms of school achievement and location. They threw more money at the program.

It still wasn't enough.

So this year, the Florida State Board of Education just went ahead and changed the rules. 

Remember that problem with getting new buildings up and running. Fixed! Colocation! Now districts must provide "underused, vacant, or surplus" facilities to SOH charters. No rent, no lease, no cost, and districts can't refuse. However, the district must provide building maintenance, custodial services, food service, and transportation. And as long as the facilities are "underused," the district has no say.

"Underused" is a big problem here. There's an administrative rule in the state code that defines "fully used" roughly as "no unused student seats," but that's not much help at all. Intermittent or irregular use? And there's a whole world of other programs that serve students in schools. As Education Matters in Manatee points out

[P]erhaps on an Excel spreadsheet (page 2 of 4 is shown below), a classroom housing six or seven students, one teacher, and several aides may appear to be “underutilized” - but it isn’t. It is in fact providing essential services to some of the most vulnerable citizens of our county.

Imagine you and some neighbors have a regular car pool to work. You share gas expenses, even pool money for a morning cup of coffee. Then one day another neighbor says, "I see you've got a spare seat in the car. I'm going to sit in it and you're going to drive me to work." The seat's not really empty, you reply-- most days we put the stuff we take to work there, and on Tuesdays we take Pat's mom to the doctor. "Don't care," says the neighbor. "You have to take me." Will you chip in for gas money? "No way," says the neighbor. "Also, you're going to buy me donuts and coffee every morning."

If this sounds like a sweet deal for charter operators, well, they agree. Dozens of charter operators have informed a public district that they want the district to fork over the space (WFTV9 pegs the number at 60, but that total appears to be a moving target-- Miami Times Online reports almost 700 "Give us your space" letters going out to school districts). 

And now that the rules have changed--Schools of Hope no longer target just low-performing schools, but any school with mysterious "underused" space-- many of the schools that are being targeted are A and B rated schools, which is swell for charters, because that's the market they want to tap anyway. Schools of Hope were launched with all sorts of florid grandstanding ("No longer will we rob children of dignity and hope. Now every single child will be afforded an opportunity of a world class education.," said Corcoran in 2017). Now charter operators can skip right past those challenging schools and head for the more profitable neighborhoods. Once again, school choice is really school's choice.

Sure enough, here comes Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy to cash in on Schools of Hope. Success has perfected the art of creaming families that will fit in-- none of this "every single child will be afforded an opportunity" baloney for Eva. Backed by $50 million from Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, she's looking to set up shop in Miami-Dade, a move that would have been expensive before the state figured out how to give her facility space (and food service and transportation) for free. In return she gets to pick and choose the most agreeable students from a market that didn't include any low-performing schools under the original definition. 

SOH present an assortment of problems on the ground--what, for instance, happens in a building where the public school staff and the charter school hours don't match up? Cafeteria time? Can schedules be worked out to manage students passing and mingling in the halls? 

And what the heck happens if the public school enrollment grows and they need some of the space back? The law doesn't appear to have any clue (perhaps because Florida legislators are focused on gutting public schools, not building them. 

A Success rep says this will be great for the public school because the co-located school will get increased state aid because of increased head count in the building. I wouldn't bet on it. Meanwhile, the charter gets to double dip-- the state hands over taxpayer dollars so that the charter can operate a school, but at the same time, the public school has to carry some of the costs of operating the charter school. 

And somehow, the party of small government is once again stomping on local control. The members of the community have no say, no voice, in whether or not the charter becomes a squatter in their public school building, and no say in how the charter operates inside that taxpayer-owned building.

What do they get? Hard to say. The results of Schools of Hope are, so far, not particularly amazing and in many cases have been outstripped by public schools that work with the same demographics. SOH charters are not subject to the same sorts of penalties for low performance that public schools suffer. No School of Hope operators have lost their designation because of their low academic performance. But beyond that, much is mysterious because Florida does not collect information about students at SOH charters-- not which groups are represented nor which attendance zones they came from. You would think that a program supposedly aimed at rescuing poor high-risk students would collect data about whether or not those students were being rescued, but no. 

If you're in Florida and want more information, I recommend the website schoolsofnope.org  and the recent report from the League of Women Voters. If you aren't in Florida, watch for this manner of picking taxpayer pockets in your state. 

It's Not About Freedom

You may have seen this meme floating about--

It's a pretty thought, but here's the problem. A bunch of people are going to look at this and think, "Well, I can already put my kids through college without debt, always have access to good health care, and get sick without going broke." These are the same folks who can always have access to good schools for their children, who never worry about affording food or shelter. If being free from fear is freedom, these folks feel pretty free already.

So their question is not, "How can we all be free like the Norwegians," but instead, "Why should I have to pay so that Those People can enjoy my kind of freedom? I deserve it, but what have they done to deserve the kind of power and privilege to which I am so rightly entitled?"

Taxpayer-funded school choice vouchers are not about empowering parents or unleashing parental rights. States have created laws that prioritize a private school's ability to charge what they wish, teach what they wish, exclude who they wish over any family's "right" to choose. "School choice" advocates have taken none of the steps needed to create an actual school choice system. 

Vouchers are about getting the government out of the education business and, by doing so, also get government out of the work of equity. Vouchers are about telling every family, "Your kid's education is now your problem, and nobody else's. Society has washed its hands of you. Good luck."

You can see the same philosophy in action in Trump's health care "plan"-- give the money to the consumers instead of the insurance companies and let the people go find their own health care with "health care savings accounts." It took him a whole decade to come up with what is essentially a school voucher plan for health care. Will your health care voucher be enough to get you the health care you needs, and couldn't you get more buying power by pooling your resources with others? Doesn't matter, because as RFK Jr repeatedly suggests that if you live right, you won't need health care that you can't afford (and if you end up dying, you deserved that, too-- hooray eugenics). 

Social safety net? Unnecessary. Just make good choices. If you do need help, get it from a church (which may not be equipped to help everyone, but may be well equipped to judge who deserves help and who does not).

The idea simmering under school choice and now bubbling up all around us is simple-- Why should I have to help take care of other people (particularly people of whom I disapprove, people who are not like me)? 

"Freedom" is a pretty word for dressing policies of abandonment. It gets traction because there is such a thing as levels of bureaucracy that can bind us in frustrating ways. But pretending that "freedom" is living life without any help or support but your own is myopic. "I saw that the car had spun off the road and slammed into a tree and I didn't want to take away the passenger's freedom to save themselves."

The freedom being advocated for is "freedom for me" or "freedom for those who deserve it." Or maybe "freedom from worrying about anyone else." It's the freedom that comes in a society that assumes that some people matter more than others, that all humans are not, in fact, created equal. We can do better than that. 

CBS Covers Florida Charter Schools

Well, look at that! Someone in the mainstream media noticed some of the very things about how charter schools operate that some of us have been talking about for over a decade. Charter school owners hire their own companies to make bank from taxpayer dollars??!! I am shocked! Shocked!!

Watch this segment, which includes Bruce Baker, one of the Institute's favorite school funding experts. Plus a look at Erika Donalds, Florida's leading school choice grifter. 

NH: Less Transparency for Vouchers

Turns out the New Hampshire taxpayer-funded voucher program would rather that people not be able to see details of how their money is spent. So much for transparency.

Last April, when the legislature was hearing testimony about its proposed plan to make New Hampshire's taxpayer funded vouchers open to any and all comers, Patty Long, a Peterborough resident who opposed the bill, testified that she had actually called one of the vendors listed on the state report. Were people really getting $750 piano lessons? Nope. They were buying pianos.

This year, the Concord Monitor published a five part series looking at how the money for the state's vouchers were spent (New Hampshire calls them Education Freedom Accounts). Their reporter, Jeremy Margolis, dug through the then-transparent database to find that, for instance, 90% of the taxpayer dollars used for tuition went to private religious schools, and that a quarter of all the taxpayer-funded tuition dollars went to just five schools. In 2022-23, families spent $520,000 – or about one-seventh of all money that did not go to private schools – on extra-curriculars-- $46,000 at area ski mountains, $35,000 at martial arts schools, and $16,000 at equestrian facilities. They took a fascinating look at how the vouchers touched off a firestorm of debate in the homeschooling community, and broke down competing estimates of the full cost of universal taxpayer-funded vouchers (the last two didn't involve the database, but they are still great reportage).

But if Margolis tried to do that same reportage now, he'd be stumped. Because Kate Baker Demers, the executive director of the Children’s Scholarship Fund, decided to hide a bunch of the information about what money was being spent on which vendors. CSF is the business that manages the voucher money for the state (because for voucher programs you need an extra bureaucratic layer to allow you to pretend that it's legal to spend taxpayer dollars to fund private religious schools). 

Baker Demers explained to Margolis:

“We learned that some individuals may have been misusing these reports to contact or harass small providers, or to question them about students and their activities,” Baker Demers said. “If true, this behavior is deeply concerning and could even be viewed as a form of stalking.”

This is baloney on a couple of levels. First, the state already has a full list of eligible vendors where voucher families can spend their pile of taxpayer dollars, so in terms of saving participating providers from being revealed, this does nothing. Anyone with a desire education service providers (because that's certainly a real thing) can still get all the information they need to stalk away. At the same time, voucher users who want to see basic market info about which vendors are popular are now denied that information. 

Second, what it does is prevent taxpayers from seeing where the money they paid is being spent. "You are not allowed to see where your tax dollars went," would not be tolerated coming from, say, actual public schools, and it should not be tolerated here.

This turns out to be one of the attendant problems of voucher systems. Most are built with barely any safeguards in place to insure that taxpayer education dollars are well spent, and so when word starts to get out about where those dollars are going, the voucher crowd gets embarrassed and/or cranky (see Arizona for extensive examples). 

CSF has no business telling taxpayers and the press that they can't know where the money is going. A voucher program that depends on operating with little or no transparency is waving a big fat red flag about financial shenanigans and legislative irresponsibility, and the people who aren't going to be bothered include the ones who believe the taxpayer-funded voucher system is working exactly as they want it to. 

Trump Is Not Sending Education Back To The States

The continued dismantling of the federal Department of Education is both a con and a lie, one more piece of a quilt of patchwork policies all built around a simple idea-- some people are better than others, and the uppity lessers really ought to learn their place. And the rhetoric being used to sell the dismantling is a lie.

The over-simplified version of the department's origin comes in two parts. First, Congress created some major funding streams meant to level the playing field for students and families, and with those funding streams, some civil rights laws to make sure states leveled their own playing fields for schooling and education. Second, Jimmy Carter, who had promised a cabinet-level ed department (and who wanted to be re-elected) proposed the department as a way to collect, organize, and administer the various policies.

The department's job was never supposed to be to determine what an excellent education should be. It was supposed to make sure that whatever a good education was presumed to be in your state, everybody got one. So even if a child was presumed to be a poor Lesser, a future meat widget, a child whose special needs made them harder to educate-- no matter what, the district and state were supposed to have the resources to meet the challenge. The quality of a child's education was not supposed to depend on their zip code. 

This does not fit well with the current regime's conception of civil rights, a conception rooted in the notion that the only oppressed group in this country is white guys, or their conception of democracy, a conception rooted in the notion that some people really are better than others and therefor deserve more power and privilege. (Nor does the regime love the idea of loaning people money for college and not collecting it).

So they've undone the second step of the department's creation, and parceled out a bunch of programs to other departments, a move that philosophically advances the idea that education has no point or purpose in and of itself, but exists only to serve other interests.

For example, as Jennifer Berkshire points out, now that the Department of Labor exists to serve the interests of bosses, its interest in education centers on producing more compliant meat widgets to serve boss's interests. Meanwhile, the ed programs now farmed over to the Department of Health and Human Services can be reorganized around RFK Jr.'s interest in eugenics and identifying those lessers whose proper place in society is, apparently, on a slab. 

That unbundling of education programs from the department only undoes the second phase of the department's origin. But Secretary Linda McMahon's assertion that these interagency agreement will "cut through layers of red tape" or "return education to the states" is thinly sliced baloney. It's a lie.

"Instead of dealing with this government department, you will deal with this other government department" does not even remotely equal "You will now have less red tape." In fact, given that you may have to track down the correct department and then deal with people who don't have actual expertise and knowledge in education may spell even more red tape.

"We moved this from one government department to another government department" is definitely not the same as "we sent this back to the states." 

Some programs may be sent back to the states in the sense that the feds would like to zero out the budget entirely which means the states that want to continue those programs will have to create and fund the programns on their own. If you tell your kids, "I'm not making you supper tonight," I guess that's kind of like saying "I'm sending the supper program to you."

But the big ticket items, like IDEA and Title I will still be operating out of DC until such day as Congress decides to rewrite them. And given Dear Leader's shrinking political capitol, I'm not sure that gutting IDEA is high on his To Do list right now. 

Matt Barnum suggests that gutting the department is largely symbolic and that actual schools won't feel that much of a difference. On the one hand, that's true-ish. "What is less clear," Barnum writes, "is the Trump administration’s longer-term ambitions." I'm not sure that's all that mysterious. The far right's goal, often in tandem with the modernn ed reform movement, is to get government entirely out of the education business while turning education into a get-it-yourself commodity. If government is involved in education at all, it would be 1) to provide a school-shaped holding tank for the difficult students that private schools don't want and 2) to provide taxpayer funding for schools that deliver the "correct" ideological indoctrination. 

The parcelling-out of the department may only be a small step in that direction, but its long-seething right wing critics can see it as a means of shushing those annoying voices that keep bringing up rules and civil rights and stuff.

The best hope at this point is for a chance to build a new version of the department under a new administration (in an imaginary world in which the Democrats don't face plant in 2028). But one of the worst things about the department has been the irresistable urge to use those massive grants to force DC-based education ideas on states, and this attack on the department doesn't really address that problem at all. 

What this latest move clearly does not do is send education back to the states, which is, acfter all, where education esponsibility already rested. The regime may be rtying to hamstring and privatize education, but they aren't sending it anywhere. It's an unserious lie from unserious people. Stay tuned. 

ICYMI: Pops Concert Version (11/30)

I play in a 169-year-old town band, and the day after Thanksgiving we present one of our biggest concerts of the year. It's a huge treat for us and audiences seem to enjoy it as well. It is how I wrap up the Thanksgiving holiday, though we get an extra-long weekend because here in NW PA, tomorrow is a day off from school because it's the first day of deer season. Hope your celebrations, whatever form they may take, have been pleasant as well.

Here's your reading list for the week.

Why ChatGPT for Teachers Might Make Things Worse

ChatGPT has a teacher version now, and it stinks, Carl Hendrick points out some of the more egregious flaws (beyond, you know, using a bot to do your job).

The Quiet Collapse of Information Access

The AI School Librarian blog takes a look at some issues around access to information. Kind of scary stuff here.

EdTech companies are lobbying their way into your kids' classroom. Who's vetting them?

Well, you already know the answer, but Lily Altavena at the Detroit Free Press looks at the details.

What the Success Academy Scandal Says About the Charter School Model

Yes, there was a scandal, again, as Eva Moskowitz was caught, again, requiring her staff and students to be taxpayer-paid lobbyists for her charter chain. Ismael Loera at The Fulcrum connects the dots to the bigger picture.

Gratitude and Canned Goods—Teaching Children to Care

Nancy Flanagan considers one of those holiday traditions-- trying to get students to care about other folks and then do something about it.

The Elimination of the Professional Status of America’s Helpers!

Nancy Bailey looks at the details of the latest Trumpian kneecapping of teachers and other helping professions. Who was deprofessionalized, and what will that mean?

What to Know About Trump’s Definition of Professional Degrees

Another take on the same issue, from Jessica Blake at Inside Higher Ed. The whole thing may be a little more complicated than your social media threads make it out to be.

New Plan to Decimate U.S. Dept. of Ed. Exposes Trump Administration’s Deficient Educational Vision

Jan Resseger provides an excellent collection of reactions to and comments on the Trump plan to gut the Department of Education

The Education Department’s Forgotten Antiracist Origins

This New York Times essay from Anthony Conwright explains the history behind what the Department of Education was for in the first place. 

Teachers are outing trans students thanks to state’s new “Don’t Say Gay” law

Here's how Texas's Don't Say Gay law works out on the ground, with trans students outed and deadnamed. Greg Owen at LGBTQ Nation reports, and it's not pretty.

Souderton residents say school board’s Thanksgiving Eve appointment is a ‘lame-duck power grab’

Many conservative school board majorities were canned in the last election, but some aren't going to let a little thing like the will of the voters stand in their way.

Colleges Are Preparing to Self-Lobotomize

"After three years of doing essentially nothing to address the rise of generative AI, colleges are now scrambling to do too much." Michael Clune explains the trouble in the Atlantic.

Relationships First: A Skeptic’s Look at AI in Schools

Sue Kingery Woltanski is the skeptic, and this post offers some practical resources and questions to consider.

On artificial time

Chatbots can't wait, because they can't quite detect the passage of time. Ben Riley with more useful tech insights.

The Radical Power of Gratitude to Rewire Your Brain and Life

Thom Hartmann on research that suggests gratitude is actually good for you. 

From blast!, the who that demonstrates just how much you can do using a marching band as your building blocks.

Sign up for my newsletter, and get my stuff clogging up your email! For free! 

Warding Off Classroom AI

There's a lot out there from folks trying and suggesting and selling ways for teachers to put their fingers in the dike holding back the allegedly inevitable AI tide. 

But I think playing AI whack-a-mole with computerized detector bots and policies designed for the express purpose of curbing chatbot cheating are not the way to go. Simply forbidding it is as effective as was the banning of Cliff Notes or Wikipedia. Numerous bots claim they can catch other bots in action; I am unconvinced and too many students have been unfairly and incorrectly accused. Trying to chase the chatbots away is simply not going to work. More than that, it is not going to help students grasp an education.

Cheating has always had its roots in a few simple factors. Students believe that success in class will be either too hard or too time-consuming for them. Students believe the stakes are too high to take a chance on failure. And students do not have a sense of the actual point of education.

I usually explain The Point like this-- education is the work of helping young humans figure out how to be more fully their best selves while working out what it means to be fully human in the world. That's a big soup with a lot of ingredients (some academic and some not), and the required ingredients vary from person to person. 

Because it's human.

As I've now said many times, AI most easily rushes into places where humanity has already been hollowed out. And unfortunately, too often that includes certain classrooms.

We've had chances to work on this before. Nancy Flanagan (and many others) tried hard to bring some attention to using the pandemic to reset schools into something better than either tradition or reform had created. But everyone (especially those in the testing industry) wanted to get back to "normal," and so we passed up that opportunity to reconfigure education. And so now here we are, facing yet another "threat" that is only threatening because we have created a system that is exceptionally vulnerable to AI.

Modern ed reform, with its test-centric data-driven outcome-based approach has pushed us even further toward classrooms that are product-centered rather than human-centered. But if class is all about the product, then AI can produce those artifacts far faster and more easily than human students. 

Carlo Rotella, an English professor at Boston College, published a New York Times piece that argues for more humantity in the humanities. He writes:

An A.I.-resistant English course has three main elements: pen-and-paper and oral testing; teaching the process of writing rather than just assigning papers; and greater emphasis on what happens in the classroom. Such a course, which can’t be A.I.-proof because that would mean students do no writing or reading except under a teacher’s direct supervision, also obliges us to make the case to students that it’s in their self-interest to do their own work.

Yup. Those the same things that I used to make my high school English class cheat-resistant for decades. Writing in particular needs to be portrayed as a basic human activity a fundamental function with lifetime utility. 

In education, it's important to understand your foundational purpose. It is so easy in the classroom to get bogged down in the daily millions of nuts and bolts decisions about what exactly to do-- which worksheet, what assignment, how to score the essay, which questions to ask, how to divide up the 43 instructional minutes today. Planning the details of a unit is hard--but it gets much easier if you know why you are teaching the unit in the first place. What's the point? I hate to quote what can be empty admin-speak, but knowing your why really does help you figure out your what and how.

If you have your purpose and your values in place, then you can assess every possible pedagogical choice based on how it serves that central purpose. The same thing is true of AI. If you know what purposes you intend to accomplish, you are prepared to judge what AI can or cannot contribute to that purpose. And if your purpose is to help young humans grow into their own humanity, then the utility of this week's hot AI tool can be judged.

Ed tech has always been introduced to classrooms ass-backwards-- "Here's a piece of tech I want you to use, somehow, so go figure out how you can work it in" instead of "Think about the education problems you are trying to solve and let me know if you think this piece of tech would help with any of them." 

But I digress. The key to an AI-resistant classroom is not a batch of preventative rules. The answer is to create a classroom with such a thoroughly human context, values, and purpose that AI is required to either provide something useful for that context, or is left out because it doesn't serve a useful purpose. The big bonus has nothing to do with AI, and everything to do with a more deliberately human approach to educating young human beings.