McMahon's particular brand of passionless functionary was on display Sunday morning for a dozen minutes with Dana Bash. The interview kicked around a few topics, and featured one moment that highlight's McMahon's lack of understanding. I've watched it so you don't have to: here are the topics of the day.
The cost of going back to school. Bash opened with the cost of supplying a child for school. $175 for school supplies! "Packing a school lunch is up more than 10%," said Bash. "What do you say to parents" struggling with the costs and economic strains?
Good soldier and millionaire McMahon sticks with the party line of denial. There may be some price "upticks," but "the general economy is strong" and doing so well. Also, parents have a lot to look forward to because the administration has done work "to make sure that parents are more in charge of the education that is going on in the states" etc etc. So McMahon offers parents denial followed by changing the subject. Which leads directly to the department's hot new talking point--
Sex stuff. Expect to hear repeats of the statistic that one in ten students will have been sexually molested in school. McMahon manages to suggest that faculty are the main problem here and the administration is really working on that. She singles out California as place that shuffles teachers. Bash interrupts to ask if McMahon just pulled that stat out of her butt and McMahon says no the department did a study, based on some data-- "the general education statistics that were afforded to us." It should be pointed out that the California issue is a real thing, as reported by KQED and ProPublica, and the whole subject deserves attention (though this administration may not be the folks to do it). She says they have "really been cracking down on that as well" though how, exactly, is unclear. But it's two minutes into the interview and you already forgot that this started with a question about the high cost of sending a kid to school.
But God bless her, Bash did not forget and responded that sure some economic indicators are better "but the affordability crisis is real." McMahon offers a kind of half nod which could be a grudging acknowledgement of the point or a simple "Well, played, Dana."
AI in the classroom. Bash notes that McMahon issued guidance saying schools should evaluate AI tools based on evidence of effectiveness and learning outcomes. But, notes Bash, the tools haven't been around long enough for any such evidence to have been collected, yet Google and OpenAI are already shoving tools toward students. "Are you concerned that students are effectively becoming sort of guinea pigs for chatbots?"
McMahon (who has learned the difference between AI and A1) goes with the talking point that says we should watch out for screen time but make our caution based on good screens and bad screens. This launches her tale of going to Austin to see Alpha School in action. She was, of course, impressed.
The first couple of hours every day, students really have on headphones, they're in front of their computers, they're getting their subjects fed to them
Yup, that's how education works-- you just pour the knowledge into the brains of young humans and voila!! Instant smartitude. McMahon talks about "teachers" at Alpha School monitoring what's going on, but Alpha School doesn't use actual certified teachers for the job of "coach." McMahon says the beauty of the 2Hour Learning model is that "a student almost has a one-on-one tutor." They do not. AI is not a tutor for so very many reasons, not the least of which is that the AI cannot analyze where the student went wrong and guide them past that bump in the learning road. She describes how the teacher can see if the child is behind and therefore "repeat information" or see the child is ahead and speed things up-- all of which is what the magical AI is supposed to be doing, so I'm pretty sure McMahon comprehends zero parts of this whole set-up.
McMahon says with AI we should look at "who's going to get it, how long are students going to be exposed to it, what is the outcome," and that would be great for Alpha School, which carefully selects its students. We know, by comparing Alpha School outcomes with the outcomes of Unbound, their bargain cyber-charters that don't cream students, that their outcomes suck (see this invaluable Dan Meyer post).
McMahon agrees that AI products should be checked for effectiveness (not that she imagines a role for her department in doing so, because the MAGA concept of federal oversight is that there should be none and let the chips fall on those who deserve to be chip-burdened, so who exactly is checking these program for effectiveness or doing the pulling out is important, but not clear here). Anyway, she thinks Alpha School is so shiny, she supports "AI with guardrails," and again-- who is putting up these guardrails?
Bash asks if she thinks Alpha School is a proper model and she says, "Well, the PR pitch I received was convincing." I'm paraphrasing. She does note that it seemed effective at these schools for these students and she's not saying it would work everywhere, which is smart because we already know it doesn't.
AI opt out. Bash asks if parents should be able to opt out of AI, and the TL:DR answer is, "Yes." The school should make its case.
AI versus human. Bash kind of fumbles this question, but the upshot is "Is the swellness of AI tutoring outweighed by the loss of human interaction with teachers?" Even with a coach there, it's not the same as learning from a human being. Are you concerned about that. The TL:DR answer is, "No, that's not our problem." But she'll also allow that human vs. AI instruction requires a balance, as with any other new tool. Nothing can replace human interaction, both between students and teacher and between student and student. She's not wrong.
School phone bans. Does McMahon think they're a good idea. "Bell to bell no cell," she says. She's a fan. Then she's back to screen time balance, recreational vs. tutoring. This is a good a place as any to mention that McMahon was born in 1948.
CTE and College. Bash gets CTE education, but wonders if pushing career tracks in elementary school is a bit much. Of course, in MAGA world, where Certain People are destined for meat widget status and might as well get started early (see: every state that has weakened child labor laws). McMahon's quote here has some real layers:
I think what we can do is look at students. What are their interests? How do we direct them down a pathway that they're going to have an interest, you know, in school and I believe that children need a well-rounded education, but I think we have focused for too long for just that four year that path to a four year university and sometimes we ignore what the actual skill sets of those students are.
Note the idea that we are supposed to direct students down a pathway rather than, say, letting them choose a path on their own. Note also the notion that students' "skill sets" should determine their paths. I don't disagree that we have over-emphasized college, but the whiff of one of those systems where we sort students into future career paths early on, regardless of what the students themselves want-- well, that's a very stinky whiff.
McMahon cites middle school partnerships with community colleges, and Bash says, well, maybe that's debatable, but elementary school??!! Maybe get some critical thinking taught and leave specific trades till later. Nah, do both at once, says McMahon. But then she flips back to "we can't direct that from DC." Because each community and its school might "need" different things. This seems really close to the notion that poor communities need to teach students to be meat widgets, and wealthy communities don't. Certainly there is nothing in her formulation of education about providing opportunities or, ironically, actual choices for students. But she's right back to "and that's why we really want to return education to the states, because we shouldn't have to make sure students all have equal opportunities no matter their zip code." Okay, I added that last part.
Higher ed free speech. Bash brings up the letter McMahon sent to universities calling for more open admission and more free speech. Bash wants to know if the Trump administration will back that up with cuts of federal funds. McMahon's reply starts with "Well, we're certainly always going to monitor what our universities are doing" which is both creepy and also contrary to sending education back to the states, but she then cites an "incredible positive response" and argues that she's all about open debate by folks on both sides of the aisle. She cites Ron DeSantis saying that Florida is all about those open two-sided debates in higher ed, so clearly that's totally working.
Look, it's a foundational belief of MAGA that the dirty Lefties captured institutions, including higher education, and that to set the country aright, those institutions must be recaptured. Chris Rufo has talked about it repeatedly; somebody has a whole book coming out about it. That's the project. Anything else is a smokescreen. McMahon's call for a "collision of ideas" can't be taken seriously.
That's pretty much it. McMahon mostly snoozed her way through the interview. As usual, McMahon strikes me as someone who is perfect for the task of doing away with her job because it's a job that doesn't seem to interest her very much at all. Honestly, I'm not sure why she's here. Betsy DeVos wanted to bring kingdom rule, but McMahon is old and wealthy and seems like she's out of effs to give. She may want to watch the world burn, but I imagine she would not stick around long to bask in the glow.
You can watch it all if you want, but don't bother to make popcorn.
No comments:
Post a Comment