OK: More Edu-spats

While awaiting SCOTUS's take on the Big Oklahoma story-- the attempt to create the illusion that a religious charter school-- do not miss the other ongoing crazypants fussing going on over various other issues.

Oklahoma is wrestling with some new history standards, subject to Edu-dudebro-in-chief Ryan Walters intense desire to jam his version of Christianity into schools while simultaneously making google eyes at Dear Leader in DC.

Here's the thing-- the standards were rather christianism-infused to begin with. But then as the new year rolled around, a bump or three appeared in the road.

There's fallout from ongoing feuding among Oklahoma's big name GOP politicians. Walters tried to get State Attorney General Gentner Drummond to make some noise about Trump's anti-diversity edicts to support Walters own response, but Drummond, who has often clashed with Walters, called it "manufactured political drama" intended to get Walters more attention. Drummond is running for governor, Kevin Stitt wants to keep being governor, and Walters sure looks like he's running for something (especially now that Dear Leader didn't call him to DC).

Then Walters decided to require all schools to send him a list of every undocumented immigrant child, and even Stitt thought that was too much ("picking on kids" he called it) and fired three members of the Board of Education. Walters put two of them on a new made-up thing called the "Trump Advisory Committee" because his old BFF Stitt is now part of the "liberal DC swamp." But Walters now has to deal with three new members of the board who don't appear to be either impressed by or afraid of Walters, and the history standards have emerged as the first topic of dispute. 

The standards were tossed in front of the board, complete with three new members, in February, accompanied by a demand that these needed to get okayed super quick. Only it turns out that the final version of the standards had some changes that had been quietly slipped in there, most notably a requirement that Oklahoma students "identify discrepancies in the 2020 election results." Those changes were not discussed, and the newly appointed board members somehow didn't know about them.

Walters has handled this challenge to his authority with aplomb and diplomacy. Ha, just kidding. He has called the new board members liars and accused them of creating a "fake controversy." "I can't make you do the reading," he said, referring to the standards with changes that nobody was told about. 

"I'm not a speed reader," said new member Ryan Deatherage, reminding Walters that he had asked for more time at the February meeting.

"I did my homework," said (more or less) new member Michael Tinney, pointing out that he downloaded the standards to read, but that what he read was the pre-sneaky-changes standards.

Sasha Ndisabiye and Bennett Brinkman have been all over this for NonDoc. They report:

Asked after the meeting why Walters did not at least notify board members of what changed between the initial version of the standards and the final version, Walters declined to give a reason besides saying he made it clear to board members that the version of the standards given to them less than 24 hours before the meeting was the updated and final version.

“I don’t control when Gov. (Kevin) Stitt put these board members on here. That’s what he chose to do,” Walters said. “It was at the very end of the process.”

I think we could safely call this a passive-aggressive hissy fit. And to add to the cheery atmosphere, the GOP chair of the Senate Education Committee, Rep. Adam Pugh, filed a resolution shortly after the board fireworks saying the Senate doesn't like the standards and will send them back to the board for a do-over. 

Walters continues to demonstrate what it looks like to put politics and personal brand building over educating actual young humans. In the meantime, Oklahomans can consider the value of adding The Big Lie to the curriculum when there are so many smaller lies near to hand. 

ICYMI: Spamalot Edition (4/27)

I'm playing in another pit orchestra, this time for a local community theater production of Spamalot, a show that makes me really want to get out my copy of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but I don't have time to because I'm playing in a pit orchestra.

But I still have time for the weekly roundup of read-worthy pieces. Here we go.

Donald Trump’s war on children

Someone at the Washington Post messed up and let Catherine Rampall post this big-picture look at all the ways Dear Leader has been trying to make life worse for the next generation.

How Trump Is Using Strategic Chaos to Reengineer Public Education

Julian Vasquez Heilig posts about the tactics of Dear Leader and what it means for education policy (watch that Overton window).

Harvard Stands Up

The Academic Freedom newsletter takes a look at Harvard's tussle with the regime. 

Harvard Takes the Gloves Off

This view is from David Pepper. Dang, but who knew that we would be cheering for Harvard some day.

Florida’s Proposed School Grading Change Isn’t About Accountability—It’s About Undermining Public Education

Sue Kingery Woltanski looks at the latest Big Bad Idea in Florida as part of its never-ending quest to kneecap public schools.

Et Tu, Urban Institute?

Stephen Dyer looks at a new study that cuts all sorts of corners on its way to saying that school vouchers are swell!

Draft executive order outlines plan to integrate AI into K-12 schools

From the Washington Post again, but all you need is the headline. And if you've not been grasping the kind of authoritarian threat that AI poses, let this be your big clue.

Executive Disorder

Audrey Watters responds to that edict for AI, in case you need an explanation of just how bad it is. 

The Silent Professor

This is an oldie, but I only just ran across it. What would you do if you lost your voice, but you still had to teach? Joseph Finckel tells his story.

Bringing Critical Thinking to the Classroom: Introducing the “InfluenceWatch Educational Guide”

Kali Fontanilla has developed some teaching materials based on the InfluenceWatch media guide to bias. If I were still in the classroom, I would be considering this.

Student Outcome Focused Governance is Impuissant

Not sure what SOFG actually is? Thomas Ultican has dug up answers to what it is, and why you should be wary. 

RIP, Libraries and Museums

Nancy Flanagan considers yet another institution that Dear Leader wants to trash.

Congress Should Defy the Trump Administration and Save Head Start

Dear Leader's budget proposal includes the cutting of Head Start. Jan Resseger explains why Congress should put the kibosh on the plan.

In search of solace

Benjamin Riley is grappling with the role of tech in the erosion of democracy, and he turns to musing with people of faith to get a handle on it.

This week at Forbes.com I looked at some of the arguments being brought up this coming week for the religious charter school case, and I looked at the court order holding off Dear Leader's anti-DEI measures for schools. 

Join me on my newsletter, and I can haunt your email inbox without you having to do a thing. It's free and always will be.

God Loves A Sucker

Lifewise is in a state of alarm over candy.

We need to have a long talk about Lifewise some time, a company that is making hay out of an Ohio law that says schools must let students out to attend church lessons-- a sort of Skip School For Jesus. It's a chance for conservative christianists to recruit children right out of school, and make a ton of money while doing it. Lifewise sets up a site for church school, and buses students to it and back during the school day (and if that sounds like a terrible idea, it is, but we'll talk about that another day). 

It's one more way to try to work around the wall between church and state, but it turns out that Lifewise needs the use of a particular tool, and they grump when they can't have it.

Candy.

Well, candy and toys. Turns out that students who skip out for church time come back to school with "candy, stickers, or tchotchkes." and Lifewise attorney Jeremy Dys says that some schools are forbidding this. You know-- in the same way that schools don't allow candy and toys during the day because it's disruptive and troublesome. All over the country you'll find schools where students can't even bring in cupcakes for their birthday because of health policies. 

But attorney Dys says forbidding students to bring back the trinkets from their Lifewise session-- well, "that’s restricting free speech and denying students their religious liberty." And he feels strongly enough about it to threaten "some very serious litigation that is not going to be fun for anybody."

Dys is an attorney at First Liberty, yet another of those right wing legal shops dedicated to imposing christinist political beliefs on everyone. 

The point here, of course, is that promising the students treats if they attend the Lifewise program is an important part of the recruitment process. Maybe the argument is that God really loves a sucker and Jesus has commanded His people to hand out lots of stickers, but I can't say I've ever seen either idea crop up in the scripture, and I'd personally rather not see my church resorting to the same recruitment techniques as creepy guys in vans. 

If Lifewise has a message that is just as powerful and uplifting and life-improving as they claim, surely they don't need to add candy and treats to sell it. 

OH: Is A District Firing A Teacher Because He's Gay?

Tiny South Central School District in Greenwich, Ohio, is stirring controversy by canning its choir director, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with his job performance. I will warn you ahead of time-- yes, this is a thing that is happening in 2025. 

Decades ago, a district in my neighborhood fired a gym teacher for being gay. They didn't hide it behind any kind of vague language; they just said they wanted to fire her because she was gay. So they did. And she sued their asses off and won. 

Since those days, uber-conservative districts have learned a lesson. Unfortunately, the lesson was not "Don't discriminate against people because of sexual orientation," but was instead "Don't say out loud that you are firing people because they are gay."

The crowd turns out for the March meeting.
  Terry Burton/Norwalk Reflector   

Greenwich, Ohio is a tiny place; fewer than 1,500 citizens located smack in the middle of Central Ohio's Big Flat Nothing. The district is the result of Greenwich's consolidation with North Fairfield schools back in 1960. The high school has around 200 students in grades 9-12. 

The district hired Alex Kuhn last year to handle the choir, and by accounts, he did a good job with his chorus getting high scores in district contests and advancing to states. But apparently word got out soon that is gay and in a committed relationship with a partner (it's not clear from what I've read whether or not they are married). And that has become a point of controversy. 

By mid-March, the region was worked up over the issue. The culture panic crowd was agitating for Kuhn's contract to be non-renewed for next year. The school board meeting drew a crowd that would be large for a school board meeting in a town with more than 1500 people. The board responded by refusing to expand public comment time (15 minutes with 3 minutes per speaker) and refusing to let anyone who hadn't signed up ahead of time to speak. Also, they announced that anyone who tried to make a public complaint against a board member or employee would be shut off. 

One 2019 graduate spoke in favor of diversity and tolerance, and also pointed out the hypocrisy that heterosexual staff can speak openly about their families and personal lives, but Kuhn is (allegedly) denied the same freedom. 

But another community member rose to express his "disappointment" over the hiring practices, and his hope that an unnamed staff member would not be rehired.

Another audience member expressed a concern that Kuhn's "values are inconsistent with the values of the community and district. The district "can't allow this to take root and snowball" and that "God will not honor this path unless we choose to alter the path." He asked four questions:

1. Was the board aware of Mr. Kuhn's lifestyle?
2. Can his contract be rescinded?
3. Can the district buy out his contract?
4. What can the board and administration do to insure this will never happen again?

 The board appears to have been split, with two members unwilling to go on record one way or the other. As a result, the vote to renew Kuhn's contract failed. 

Those opposed were remarkably coy about the actual issue. The one newspaper that covered the meeting (Terry Burton for the Tandem Network) couldn't get anyone to comment on exactly what policy the board was reviewing, nor was anyone apparently explicit about the "this" in the "this will never happen again." Disappointed? About what.

But Kuhn's defenders seem to have no doubt about what they're defending him from. A petition at change.org supporting Kuhn has 1,294 signatures and numerous comments praising the teacher and condemning the attempt to end his employment over homophobia on the board and in the community. 

What's the fear? Students will learn that LGBTQ persons exist in the world, leading perfectly ordinary lives? Is this that same old notion that nobody is born LGBTQ and therefor every LGBTQ person is probably a recruiter? Are people just freaking out about LGBTQ persons for no particular reason beyond vague moral panic? I suppose one is entitled to disapprove of LGBRQ persons (though it strikes me like disapproving of blondes), but why should that disapproval require stripping a young man of his job?

I wish I could provide more detail, but there's very little real media coverage of rural Ohio, so this is pulled from the one press account about the March 17 meeting and a plethora of online comments that center on the April meeting, which appears to be the one at which the board failed to hire Kuhn for next year. One commenter noted that the board opened the meeting with a prayer. Several others suggest he may have cause for a lawsuit, and that certainly seems possible, though what young teacher would want to go through that. This is an ugly chapter for the district, but time will tell if there is more of this story ahead. 

How Schools Can Push Back Against Christian Nationalism

Christian Nationalism is neither Christian nor nationalism, but it is currently inescapable in this country. It presents a challenge for schools and educators-- how do you educate students in a climate of culture panic that demands adherence to a list of ever-shifting beliefs?

Katherine Stewart is an exceptional chronicler of christian nationalism, and is particularly good at framing what's really happening. A hugely valuable insight from her most recent work, Money, Lies and God, is that christian nationalism can be understood not as a particular set of policy goals, but as a particular mindset, a view of the world described by four beliefs.

First is the belief that the country is going straight to hell. Think Trump's many dark descriptions of the many ways that America is no longer great. Education has been captured by Marxist radical leftists who have installed groomers and pedophiles in every room. Any minute now they're going to lure your sons into the guidance office to get their penis chopped off during study hall. 

Second is the persecution complex. One survey shows that christian nationalists believe discrimination against white folks is at least as big a problem as discrimination against minorities. Trump's creation of the anti-christian bias task force is an expression of this view. Stewart points out that surveys show fear about the loss of status is a driver of Trump support. 

Third is the insistence that christian nationalists have a "unique and privileged connection to this land." Stewart has elsewhere made the point that for these folks, government derives legitimacy not from the "consent of the governed," but from alignment with proper christian values. Here that extends to individuals-- people who are aligned to the correct christian values created this country (hence our favored "exceptional" status), and such people are also entitled to privilege and position that others are not. (When those Others are given that undeserved privilege that should belong to the Right People--well, see the second item on the list).

Fourth, is the mindset that "Jesus may have great plans for us, but the reality is that this is a cruel place in which only the cruel survive." Yes, cruelty is the point of many christian nationalist policies and actions, but the point they want to make is that this is what the world is like--cruel and hard and a constant battle that you can only win by being hard and cruel and allied with Jesus, and if that sounds like a bizarre contradiction, well, there's a reason I don't capitalize the "christian" in "christian nationalism."

This mindset is also wrapped in a layer of anti-curiosity about other views. As one gifted student at my school years ago said when offered a unit about comparative religions, "Why would I study those other religions? They're all wrong." People with different views are evil or stupid or both; we can see this in action with the Trump regime, which never ever admits that reasonable people might have a view different from theirs. 

So what can schools and classroom teachers do in response?

The short answer is to develop a school culture that reflects and demonstrates a different view of the world.

The notion that the country is going to hell? Ironically, this MAGA linchpin is profoundly unpatriotic, and the counterpoint is actual patriotism. That's patriotism rooted in an honest story of our successes and failings, and the steps we have taken to live up to our principles in a long arc that speaks to the rising and advancing of the nation.

The persecution complex? Run a school in which dignity, respect, and quality instruction are not zero-sum qualities that are only available to a few students. Challenge every attempt to give some students less respect and dignity and education. 

The privileged position? Okay, this is honestly the hard one, because some students being deprived of their "rightful" position as the Most Special Boys and Girls are going to kick hard. But other students will see how you react to that. Students know whether rules and privileges are fairly handled or not. Students know whether some people in your school are valued more than other.

A cruel world? The school and classroom can provide a strong, living argument against this mindset, and all they have to do is value something other than cruelty. Schools and classroom management can be based on trust and support rather than threats and punishment. If your school's message is "Life sucks and you'd better toughen up," you are underscoring the christian nationalist message and all that's left is working out how to be the most cruel. 

And finally, recognize that ideas can be debated, discussed, and dissected, but to simply impose ideas on others through blunt power and rough cruelty is no way to grow in mind and character. Teachers especially have to remember this. 

None of this means a school culture of fluffy bunnies and warm fuzzy unicorns, and it certainly doesn't require the suppression of honest conflict or the erasure of consequences for bad choices. Nor does it require actual active dialog with christian nationalists.

All it requires is schools and classrooms based on grace and generosity, respect and recognized human worth for all students. It requires a school that recognizes and celebrates the rich beautiful diversity of human ways to be in the world, not some tiny cramped meager vision of a world of grey scarcity where some humans are worth more than others from the moment they walk in the door. This is how we do the best job of delivering a quality education to all students, and if that also shows them that there is a way to see the world other than in dark grasping angry paranoia--well, that would be a benefit to society as well.

It's worthwhile for US citizens, especially those of us who think of ourselves as Christians, to check ourselves for markers if these christian nationalist mindset characteristics. It's easy enough to fall into the idea that the country is going to hell, that some people matter more than others, that life is a bitch and the only way to win is to be the biggest bitch on the block. But if you agree with MAGA and your only beef is about which people are the most valuable, you've already handed them the win. There is no profit in replacing one dark vision of humanity with another just as dark.

Education is about helping young humans uncover and grow to be fully themselves, to grasp what it means to be fully human in the world. The christian nationalists of MAGA world have little interest in any part of that; that's why, though they wash up on our spiritual and intellectual shores time after time, they always fade back into their own dark depths. No reason that schools cannot be part of the resistance. 

UT: Court Strikes Down Voucher Program

Utah privateers were pretty excited about getting a taxpayer-funded school voucher program through the legislature. HB 215 pulled off that trick in part by bundling teacher salary boosts with an education savings account program. But now they're back to square one, because Judge Laura Scott of the Third Judicial District Couty in Salt Lake has found the whole thing unconstitutional.

In 2023, the legislature (swiftly) created Utah Fits All (curious name, suggesting one size does fit all, I guess). It was supposed to be universal (maybe that's the "all" part), with wealthy families who had never set foot in public schools eligible. That's standard these days-- taxpayer funded vouchers have pretty much left behind the old "for poor children trapped in failing schools" rhetoric. 

The bill was passed with a GOP super-majority, avoiding a repeat of 2007, when lawmakers passed a voucher bill, voters forced a referendum, and vouchers were then repealed by 62% of Utah voters. The legislature in 2023 appropriated $42.5 million from the Income Tax Fund to finance the vouchers (with a slice, of course, for ClassWallet, the voucher management company). Then in 2024 they threw in another $40 million.

Utah Fits All has most of the usual features, like voucher money being spent on any education-flavored expense of the family's choice, and some unusual ones, like mandating that nobody but the family can see inside the student "portfolio"-- in other words, nobody is allowed to know how the money was actually spent. And critically, as always, the schools receiving taxpayer-funded vouchers are not state actors and may discriminate on many bases, including LGBTQ status, disability, or religion. 

Utah's teacher union challenged the new law, thus beginning the trek to this month's decision.

As happened in South Carolina and Kentucky, the voucher fans found themselves facing a court that can read the plain language of the state constitution. The decision cites key parts of the Utah constitution, like this one:

The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state's education systems including: (a) a public education which shall be open to all children of the state' and (b) a higher education system. Both systems shall be free from sectarian control.

The court also cites the part of the constitution that delineate the state's responsibility to establish and manage the education system. Does the state, asked the court, have the authority to "create an education program that is not part of the public education system." 

In what may seem like a tasty twist for court watchers, the Utah court notes that while there's an argument that some of the language of the constitution may be ambiguous or subject to interpretation of modern legislative intent, the US Supreme Court has been big on the "original public meaning: and tradition argument for reading constitutions. 

The court decision finds a couple of problems with the taxpayer-funded voucher program. 

First, the state tried to lean on a 1986 Proposition claiming that it gives the state the authority to designate schools that aren't onside the public system and are sectarian. The court agrees that there's no way that voters of 1986 would have understood the amendment to empower the legislature "to create a constitution-free zone where publicly funded education programs could operate in violation of constitutional requirements." So, the state doesn't have the authority. 

There's a similar argument with a 2020 action known as Amendment G, meant to alter the constitutional rules for using tax revenue. The discussion of the bill (by which the court judges intent) never mentions school choice, nor did the publicity surrounding it. Once again, the court determines that a taxpayer-funded voucher was not part of the intent of the bill at all.

In addition, the court finds that the proposed system is not open to all children of the state. Public schools must take the students that land on their doorstep; voucher schools don't.

Judge Scott's ruling is just short of 60 pages, much of it highly detailed and dizzying legal argument, but the bottom line is clear-- Utah privateers have to go back to the drawing board or to a higher court. She deliberately avoided a debate about the merits of choice, but instead focused on the constitutional violations-- most especially the state's argument that some taxpayer-funded schools should still get to discriminate as they see fit. 

Does this have any far-reaching implications. Unlikely. As Chris Lubienski, ed policy professor at Indiana University, told Education Week, the rulings tend to come down to “variation in how the state constitutions are written,” rather than to a verdict on private school choice as a concept. These battles will be fought state by state. And I expect we haven't heard the last from Utah.

Moms For Liberty University

Moms For Liberty has a university! Sort of. If you use a really broad definition of "university." Like even broader than the definition used by Prager University.

M4LU wants to "inform-equip-empower." They call themselves "an academic approach to educating, equipping, and empowering parents to fight for their children."

Moms for Liberty, through M4LU seeks to be the go-to resource for parents to learn more about the issues and ideologies facing their children in the classroom, and to gain practical tools to navigate those issues.

Punctuation errors in the original.

The program director is Melissa Karwowski. She is touted as having "a diverse background in marketing, operations, data analytics, and tech consulting." Her sister-in-law started the M4L chapter in Washington County, PA (southwest of Pittsburgh) where Karwowski lives. 

She appears to be the same Melissa Karwowski whose LIinkedIn profile shows her working the tech side of multiple industries, most recently working as Director of Operations for IndeVets, an outfit that appears to provide floating employment for veterinarians. It appears that she was also a Mary Kay lady at one point. She's a military spouse (there's a nice piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about her welcoming her husband home in 2018). They have three children. She has a couple of degrees from Robert Morris University--one in business administration, and one in data analytics, both from 2021.

While this very much appears to be the same woman who is program director, her LinkedIn does not mention the M4LU job at all.

So the program director seems a bit more qualified to manage digital resources than an actual university, which seems about right. But she also doesn't appear to have been the first person in the job. January and February lecture videos are hosted by Robin Steenman, who introduces herself as M4LU director. Steenman may be familiar as the M4L leader in Tennessee who led the book banning charge there. 

The "university" launched in January. As Jennifer Vilcarino noted at Ed Week, M4LU is not actually accredited. Karwowski describes the goal a little more specifically:

Radical ideologies that have been building for decades are being daily inculcated in our children’s minds. What are the seeds being sown in our children today in America? If we as parents are to combat these efforts, we must understand the ideology. We must become experts ourselves. That is the goal of M4LU.

The website lists two "semesters" for 2025, but the format seems much more like a "topic of the month" structure. January-- Social Emotional Learning. February-- Critical Race Theory. March-- Restorative Justice. April-- Gender Ideology. May-- Comprehensive Sex Ed. In the fall, things get a bit more esoteric. August-- Generative Curriculum. September-- Graphic Content in Libraries. October-- Ethnic Studies. November-- Marxism.

For each topic, there's a group of resources. There's a "smart book" that provides a history and background of the topic from the far right perspective. This includes talking points arranges according to the points to which one is responding. The resources include presentation slides, and a set of videos. There is also a set of "white papers" and some books for recommended reading, plus a whole laundry list of related links (CRT gives links to videos that Williamson County M4L created when they were trying to ban the Wit and Wisdom books series, including a Riby Bridges bio-- that was three years ago).

The "experts" cites are the usual crew. James Lindsay, Chris Rufo, Parents Defending Education, the American Enterprise Institute, and plenty of Heritage Foundation stuff. There are also "watch parties for films every month or so.

As mentioned, there's a live lecture with each month, apparently filmed at a studio in Nashville (for $25 you can be part of the studio audience)

I could get into the specifics, but-- okay, just one. To respond to the argument that restorative justice is a good idea because children who commit offenses do so because of social factors beyond their control and punishing them just makes matters worse, the resources suggests you say that "Bad social circumstances caused by government policy make it more likely that members of certain groups will commit crimes."

The newly made materials for this endeavor are slick and professional looking, the website also slick and easily navigated. However, you can't squint hard enough in a million years to make this look like a university. What it is is a deep resource library being rolled out a month at a time. It is a library of all the usual complaints and grievances of the culture panic crowd, presented in an academic-looking form that should be welcome by the "I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I just want to answer some questions" crowd.

M4LU told EdWeek that it includes counter perspectives, and that's true, though it's also clear that those perspectives are there in a Know Your Enemy function and not to be engaged as ideas that reasonable people might hold. M4LU frequently credits itself with an "academic" approach, but I'm not sure that they know what that means. Granted, it's a vague sort of term, but I've never understood it to mean "we have already decided the conclusion and we will now just build a scaffold to support it and discredit all others." I think maybe they think "academic" means "not screaming," and M4LU does seem to clear that floor-level bar. 

M4L remains far more interested in using culture panic to stir up political activism than it is interested in actual education or, for that matter, liberty. M4LU is one more aspect of that mission to outrage and agitate MAGA ladies. If you want to get a picture of what the current talking points and arguments are, this website is just the thing. But a university it is not.