Tuesday, May 20, 2025

20 Rules for Life (2025 edition)

After first posting this list years ago, I have made it a tradition to get it out every year and re-examine it, edit it, and remind myself why I thought such things in the first place (it is also a way to give myself the day off for my birthday). This list does not represent any particular signs of wisdom on my part, because I discovered these rules much in the same way that a dim cow discovers an electric fence. Also, I'll note that it gets longer every year (this is not the book I'm working on, but if you're a publisher who sees a book here, contact me). And as the years roll by, it is interesting to note that some rules loom larger than others depending on the state of the world that year. 

In the meantime, I exercise a blogger's privilege to be self-indulgent. My rules for life, in no particular order.

1. Don't be a dick.


There is no excuse for being mean on purpose. You will hurt people in life, either through ignorance or just because sometimes life puts us on collision courses with others and people get hurt. Sometimes conflict and struggle appear, and there is no way out but through. There is enough hurt and trouble and disappointment and rejection naturally occurring in the world; there is no reason to deliberately go out of your way to add more.

This is doubly true these days, even though some folks have decided that being a dick is a worthy goal, that inflicting hurt on Those People Who Deserve It Because They Are Wrong is some sort of virtue, that treating people poorly, on purpose, is not only okay, but necessary. It isn't. Be kind.


Step 1 of the writing process

2. Do better.

You are not necessarily going to be great. But you can always be better. You can always do a better job today than you did yesterday. Make better choices. Do better. You can always do better. Important note: having screwed up yesterday does not excuse from doing better today. No matter how lost or in the weeds you may be, no matter where you are, there's always a direction that takes you towards better.

3. Tell the truth (as best you can).

Words matter. Do not use them as tools with which to attack the world or attempt to pry prizes out of your fellow humans (see Rule #1). "Untrue but advantageous for my team" is not an okay substitute for "true to the best of my understanding." Say what you understand to be true. Life is too short to put your name to a lie.

This does not mean that every word out of your mouth is some sort of Pronouncement from God. Nor does it mean you must be unkind.

But you simply can't speak, post, write or publish words that you know to be untrue. Untruths are not an acceptable means to an end, if for no other reason than if you do not achieve that end, then all that's left is you being a liar.

As a culture, we are drowning in bullshit. So much so that we simply accept that being told things that aren't true is just an ordinary part of life. And it is now accelerated because we have amazing little bullshit-generation machines, machines that cannot conceive of "true" or "false" and do not need to in order to fulfill their function of saying things that no human actually means. AI makes it easier than ever to generate a string of words that is disconnected from any intention, meaning, or truth. This not good for us.

4. Seek to understand.

Do not seek comfort or confirmation. Do not simply look for ways to prove what you already believe. Seek to understand, and always be open to the possibility that what you knew to be true yesterday must be rewritten today in the light of new, better understanding. Ignoring evidence you don't like because you want to protect your cherished beliefs is not helpful. Understand that this is a journey you will never complete, and it's not okay to quit. 

All of this goes double for interacting with other human beings. Do not simply decide who they are, or who you want to pretend they are (see #3), and force their every action and word to fit, rather than trying to understand what they are trying to communicate. 

5. Listen and pay attention.

Shut up, listen, watch, and pay attention. How else will you seek understanding? Watch carefully. Really see. Really hear. People in particular, even the ones who lie, will tell you who they are if you just pay attention.

Don't skip moments because you think they're minor. Your life is happening right now, and the idea of Special Moments just tricks us into ignoring a million other moments that are just as important. Also, love is not a thing you do at people-- to say that you care about someone even as you don't actually hear or see them is a lie.

Also, pay attention to things and people who contradict your cherished beliefs about yourself, because there may be something there that you really need to hear.

6. Be grateful.

You are the recipient of all sorts of bounty that you didn't earn. Call it the grace of God or good fortune, but be grateful for the gifts you have been given. You did not make yourself. Nobody owes you anything, but you owe God/the Universe/fate everything. I have been hugely fortunate/blessed/privileged; I would have to be some sort of huge dope to grab all that life has given me and say, "This is mine. I made this. It's all because I'm so richly deserving." I've been given gifts, and the only rational response I can think of is to be grateful. That's important because gratitude is the parent of generosity and grace. These days, the world needs more grace.

Note: even if you believe that all humans are somehow fundamentally different, that we all naturally belong to different tiers and strata, you are kidding yourself to belief that the sorting is the result of some innate merit or quality that happens to make you better than others. 

7. Mind the 5%

95% of life is silly foolishness that humans just made up and then pretended had some Great Significance. Only about 5% really matters, has real value. Don't spend energy, worry, fret, concern, time, stress on the other 95%. The trick is that every person has a different idea of what constitutes the 5%, and sometimes the path to honoring and loving that other person is to indulge their 5%. 

Narrowing down and refining your 5% is a lifetime project. Some people just give up. One way of understanding the moral and ethical hollowness of the current regime is a bunch of people who are absolutely lost in their attempt to identify a 5%.

8. Mind your own business (and hush).

Somehow we have arrived at a culture in which everyone needs to have and express an opinion about everything. If it's not your monkey, not your circus, and not a topic about which you know a single damn thing, what do you suppose you will add by chiming in? There are people whose whole day is organized around roaming the internet so they can unleash their opinion on people (see Rule #1). This does not make the world a better place, doesn't make them better people, and doesn't help solve the issue. Sometimes it is perfectly okay to say, "There's no reason for me to express an opinion about this topic."

9. Take care of the people around you.

"What difference can one person make" is the wrong question. It is impossible for any individual human to avoid making a difference. Every day you make a difference either for good or bad. People cross your path. You either makes their lives a little better or you don't. Choose to make them better. The opportunity to make the world a better place is right in front of your face every day; it just happens to look like other people (including the annoying ones). Nobody is in a better position than you are to take care of the people right in front of your face.

These opportunities may come at inconvenient times in inconvenient forms. That's tough--we don't get to pick our times or circumstances, but we can either rise to meet them or bail. Bailing does not make the world better. Take care of people, even when the leadership of the country is leaning hard on the message that you don't need to care about Those People.


You are never too young for your first tin hat.


10. Commit.

If you're going to do it, do it. Commitment gets up and gets the job done on the days when love and passion are too tired to get off the couch. Also, commitment is like food. You don't eat on Monday and then say, "Well, that takes care of that. I don't need to think about eating for another week or so. " Commitment must be renewed regularly. Make choices. Live intentionally.

11. Shut up and do the work

While I recognize there are successful people who ignore this rule, this is my list, so these are my rules. And my rule is: Stop talking about how hard you're working or what a great job you're doing or what tremendous obstacles you're overcoming. In short, stop delivering variations on, "Hey, look at me do this work! Look at me!" Sometimes we spend too much time talking about the work instead of just doing the work. Self-reflection is valuable, but at some point you just have to get on with the work.

Note, however, there is a difference between "Hey, lookit me do this work" and "Hey, look at this important work that needs to be done." Ask the ego check question-- if you could do the work under the condition that nobody would ever know that you did it, would you still sign up? If the answer isn't "yes," ask yourself why not.

One of the side effects of social media is that not only do we curate and craft our lives, but we want lots of other people to participate in and confirm the narrative that we're creating. "You're canceling me," often means "You are refusing to corroborate my preferred narrative." We don't just want an audience; we want pliable co-stars. Worry less about both. Don't craft your narrative; do the work.

12. Assume good intent.

Do not assume that everyone who disagrees with you is either evil or stupid. They may well be either, or both-- but make them prove it. People mostly see themselves as following a set of rules that makes sense to them. If you can understand their set of rules, you can understand why they do what they do. Doesn't mean you'll like it any better, but you may have a basis for trying to talk to them about it. And as a bare minimum, you will see yourself operating in a world where people are trying to do the right thing, rather than a hostile universe filled with senseless evil idiots. It's a happier, more hopeful way to see the world.

Also, this: when you paint all your opponents as monsters, you provide excellent cover for the actual monsters out there, and you excuse monstrous behavior in yourself.

13. Don't waste time on people who are not being serious.

Some people forget to be serious. They don't use words seriously. They don't have a serious understanding of other people or their actions or the consequences of those actions. They can be silly or careless or mean, but whatever batch of words they are tossing together, they are not serious about them. They are not guided by principle or empathy or anything substantial. There's no time-waters quite like trying to change the mind of a person about X when that person has no serious opinion about X to begin with.

Note: do not mistake grimness for seriousness and do not mistake joy and fun for the absence of seriousness. Beware: One of the great tricks of not-being-serious people is to get you to waste time on them, to spend time and energy thinking, fretting, arguing acting about shiny foolishness, leaving them free for larger abuses that go unchecked.

This rule is being heavily challenged these days are a whole lot of very un-serious people have been installed in places of power, and that makes it very hard to distinguish between wasting time dealing with them and investing time in protecting stuff from them.

14. Don't forget the point.

Whatever it is you're doing, don't lose sight of the point. It's basic Drivers Ed 101. If you look a foot in front of the car, you'll wander all over the road. If you stare right at the tree you want to miss, you will drive right into it. Where you look is where you go. Keep your eye on the goal. Remember your purpose. And don't try to shorthand it; don't imagine that you know the path that guarantees the outcome you want. Focus on the point (even if it's a goal that you may never reach) because otherwise you will miss Really Good Stuff because you had too many fixed ideas about what the path to your destination is supposed to look like.

Therefor...

15. Don't be misled by your expectations.

Most of our daily misery (not the real big suffering stuff) is the result of measuring our actual situation against expectations we've created for ourselves. So many times we could be saying "Wow! A steak!" but instead we go with, "Dammit, where's my watermelon?"

Doors will appear on your path. Open them even if they are not exactly what you were expecting or looking for. Don't simply fight or flee everything that surprises or challenges you (but don't be a dope about it, either). Most of what I've screwed up in life came from reacting in fear-- not sensible evaluation of potential problems, but just visceral fear. Most of what is good about my life has come from saying "yes." And most of that is not at all what I would have expected or planned for.

16. People are complicated (mostly)

People grow up. People learn things. People have a day on which their peculiar batch of quirks is just what the day needs; our strengths and weaknesses are often the exact same thing just in different contexts. Awful people can have good moments, and good people can have awful moments-- it's a mistake to assume that someone is all one thing or another. Nobody can be safely written off and ignored completely. Corollary: nobody can be unquestioningly trusted and uncritically accepted all the time. People are a mixed mess of stuff. Trying to sort folks into good guys and bad guys is a fool's game.

17. Make something.

Music, art, refurbished furniture, machinery. Something.

18. Show up.

The first rule of all relationships is that you have to show up. And you have to fully show up. People cannot have a relationship with someone who isn't there, and that includes someone who looks kind of like they're there but who isn't really. In the combination of retirement and parenting again, I'm reminded that this also means nor just being fully present, but remembering to show up at all. You put your head down, go to work, and then a week or two later you're suddenly remembering that it's been a while since you checked in with someone. Rule #2 applies.

Part B of this rule is that when you show up, you may suddenly find out that the place and time requires something of you. Showing up means answering that call.

19. Refine your core.

Know who you are. Strip the definition of yourself of references to situation and circumstance; don't make the definition about your car, your hair, your job, your house. The more compact your definition of self, the less it will be buffeted and beaten by changes in circumstance. When you define yourself by your car and haircut, the loss of your car or your hair is an existential crisis. Refining your core means you don't waste existential panic on minor bumps in the road. Note: this is good work to do long before you, say, retire from a lifelong career that largely defined you.

Also note: do not climb into your own navel and build a home there. At some point you have to stop reflecting and processing and analyzing and just get on with life. 

20. How you treat people is about you, not about them.

It's useful to understand this because it frees you from the need to be a great Agent of Justice in the world, meting out rewards and punishments based on what you think about what people have done or said. It keeps you from wasting time trying to decide what someone deserves, which is not your call anyway. It also gives you power back that you give up when your stance is that you have to wait to see what someone says or does before you react to it.

Treat people well because that's how you should treat people, not because you have decided they deserve it. But don't be a dope; if someone shows you that they will always bite you in the hand, it's prudent to stop offering them your hand. (Also, their repeated hand biting is all about them, not about you and your hand).


Sunday, May 18, 2025

ICYMI: New Year's Resolution Edition (5/18)

Yeah, not that new year. I start a new year this week, and given that and a conversation or two in the last week, I have something to do.

For many years, I have nibbled around the edges of setting down what I imagine I've learned about the teaching if writing-- writing for real, not writing for testing or performative nonsense. It's not a new issue, but the sudden rise of AI does, I think, force us to confront it. At any rate, it seems like it's time to try to make a book out of it. I don't have a publishing contract, but if I don't get this done and ready to go out into the world, I'll kick myself for not getting it done. So finish the book first, figure out how to get it into the world second.

But that means making some time to get the work finished, and the time for that has to come from somewhere. So until this is beaten into shape, I will be cutting back on posting. I don't know what will look like exactly-- I'll keep writing for Forbes.com and other outlets that pay me, and I expect that there will be times when I just can't restrain myself, chunks of time in the day that are not long enough for book work but long enough for blogging-- anyway, you get the idea. And I will keep doing this weekly digest, because amplifying each other is important.

At any rate, if you notice that my usually prolific output seems slowed, that's why. Now on to this week's list.

Lowell school librarian sues parent over years-long harassment, false claims

In Lowell, Michigan, one school librarian has finally had enough of the harassment by a local Moms For Liberty member. See you in court!

West Ada teacher to resign over 'Everyone is Welcome Here' controversy

Well, this is a bummer. Sarah Inama, the Idaho teacher caught in a big controversy over her "everyone is welcome here" classroom poster, has also had enough. She's done at that district and is moving on.

The Worst Thing About ChatGPT in Schools Is That It Kills Trust

From Phil Christman's newsletter The Tourist. The punchline is in the title, but the whole piece is still well worth the read.

School Privatization is the Opposite of Populism

Jennifer Berkshire is relentless in pointing out that vouchers are a losing issue for the Republican Party, if only someone would call them out on it.

A Gutted Education Department’s New Agenda: Roll Back Civil Rights Cases, Target Transgender Students

ProPublica looks at how the Ed Department Office of Civil Rights is now running completely backwards.

Is a Repackaged Failed Solution the Solution?

Andy Spears quotes me and points out the trouble with repeating failed policies of the past.

Addressing the Transactional Model of School

John Warner continues to do an outstanding job of addressing the systemic problems revealed/exacerbated by the rise of chatbots.

How the School Choice Agenda Harms Rural Students

Paige Shoemaker DeMio writing at the Center for American Progress has a report (with footnotes) explaining why school choice is so bad for rural folks. 

“Ghost Students”: Financial Aid Theft by Bot

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider digs into the new business of using bots to defraud financial aid programs.


Thomas Ultican explains the problems of vouchers and the future fraudfest in Texas.

Why Does the Word “Traditional” Have a Negative Rather Than a Positive Ring?

Interesting reflection on one by-product of ed reform, courtesy of Larry Cuban.

How to outwit generative AI

Ben Riley has a really, really interesting conversation with Colin Fraser, a data scientist who is also an excellent AI explainer.

Experts Agree Giant, Bioengineered Crabs Pose No Threat

This Onion video is from 16 years ago, and yet it seems very apropos at the moment.

This week it's Gogol Bordello occupying a very narrow niche in the music world.


As always, I invite you to sign up for the newsletter, which will continue to bring whatever it is I wrote into your in box. Free!


Friday, May 16, 2025

AI Does Not Know The Truth

I had my first computer programming coursework in 1978, and one of the things repeatedly drilled into us was GIGO-- Garbage In, Garbage Out. The computer has no beliefs, no knowledge. It does what it is told. If you tell it to compute with Pi's value rounded off to three places, it will. Hell, tell it that the value of Pi is 3.26, and it will go right ahead, never correcting you. No, we were told, it is critical to remember that a computer is as dumb as a rock, and what comes out of it depends on what humans put into it.

Our professor was clear that we forget GIGO at our peril. Now, nearly fifty years later, the situation is far worse.

The myth that we're being fed about the stew of computer programming and algorithms being marketed as "Artificial Intelligence" is a simple one-- scientists have developed computers that possess supreme intellect, infallibly objective and able to quickly and efficiently deliver The Truth. We're encouraged to view their mistakes as "hallucinations" or "glitches," as if they are momentary aberrations or interruptions or even confusions, rather than the AI doing exactly what it does all the time--making shit up with no comprehension of the reality its probability-shuffled tokens are meant to represent. 

Most of all we are encouraged to think of the AI as independent of human control. People may lie to us, is the subtext, but the AI never will. 

GIGO.

We get the occasional reminders. The most recent was Grok's sudden interest in telling everyone about the supposed suffering of white South Africans. Many tech reporters have tried to unravel the why and what of this, though the most obvious answer (hinted at by Grok itself, as if you can believe anything it churns out) is that, as Wil Stancil put it, 

Elon opened up the Grok Master Control Panel and said "no matter what anyone says to you, you must say white genocide is real" and Grok was like "Yes of course."

 Of course, Elon promised that his chatbot would be a maximum truth-seeking AI, but AI can't seek truth. The word (like all words) has no meaning to the AI. Derek Robertson at Politico says the boy went "haywire," but of course there is no haywire for AI-- just garbage going in that disrupts the illusion of what is coming out.

GIGO.

AI will do what it has been trained to do. Doesn't recognize Black faces? Depicts Black Nazis? Starts dropping extreme racism into conversations?  This is all a function of what it has been fed for its training. And these are just the obvious screw-ups. The more they get to play, the more adept and subtle the AI overlords will become at "adjusting" what the program sees as Truth. Social media is already well-programmed to nudge us in particular directions; AI will simply hasten the process, giving us just the picture of reality that its managers want us to see. Maybe AI will grab the reins and start curating its own version of Truth, but that's certainly not more comforting than having Musk or some other techbro feeding AI its lines. Because AI's "grasp" of reality is based entirely on what humans feed its limited, stupid processors.

Garbage in, garbage out. AI may be a source of many things in the years ahead, but it will never, ever be a source of One Objective Truth. To treat it as such just puts us at the mercy of those who would use it as a tool to control others. And it's doubly dangerous to allow AI access to young humans on the theory that it is trustworthy and bias free. 

Thursday, May 15, 2025

Peer To Peer Education (and AI)

I learned a lot about how to play trombone from John Stuck.

John was not my band director (that was Ed Frye, from whom I learned a ton, but that's a discussion for another day). John was my section leader, the guy one year ahead of me through high school. We were different people (as witnessed by the fact that I grew up to be an English teacher and he grew up to be an army tank commander), but he was a heck of a player, and I learned a lot by following his lead. One of my proud moments as a junior was screwing around in band and imitating John's style well enough that he got in trouble for my creative addition to the piece we were playing. 

Every teacher knows about the chemistry of certain individuals in a classroom. Sometimes it's negative--that class that always goes so much better if just that one student is absent. But mostly it's part of what drives the class forward. Sometimes it's as simple as plain old competitiveness; more often it's just the tone that is set. 

As much as you work to set a tone and culture for your classroom, your students are always part of the equation. They inspire each other and support each other. 

My classes depended on peer effects. Full class and small group discussion. Peer review and editing of writing. These help magnify the effect of hearing from people who are very much at the same point in their journey as you. Fellow students reveal the many possibilities for the work, and those possibilities are more powerful for coming from someone much like you. 

The effects are obvious in places like music ensembles, sports teams, school theater productions. Students challenge each other to up their game, to bring their work up to another level, to provide support on the highest tier. You strive to play well enough to keep up with your section leader. You step up to pull your weight on the team. You perform well enough to match your scene partner. 

In class discussion, I've watched students try far harder to explain themselves to each other than to me. I've watched students help each other solve writing problems. I've seen plain old rivalry push students to avoid being outdone by classmates, and I've watched students rise into leadership roles and help create a classroom that values inquiry and exploration.

I had a class years ago that was the most wide-ranging, most willing to discuss anything and everything, bouncing and building off classmates with a magical combination of push and support. My final assessments always included a giant year-encompassing essay prompt; that year it was "What is the meaning of life?" The exceptional success of that class wasn't about me-- I was doing more or less what I did every year-- but the extraordinary combination of students.

It's a throw of the dice. Most teachers have wondered what might have happened if Student X had been born a year sooner or later and ended up in Class Y. Sometimes you can help a bit, if you've got a good eye for combining students in work groups. 

But you know what won't improve the odds of this magical alchemy happening for students? Parking them in front of a screen and having them interact with an AI coach or guide or algorithm wrangler or poor excuse for "personalized" learning. 

There are many hard conversations that go with this issue. When a strong student leaves one school for another, the school they've left has lost more than just one seat occupant. A talent drain can hurt a school as well as an industry or country. But we can't possibly ask parents to pass up an opportunity for their child so that other students will benefit. Pat might have been a leader, a positive education influence on students at East Egg High, but Pat also deserves to move to an environment where the other students will push Pat. 

We know that peer effects in education are a thing; there is enough research out there to build a small house. I find it a little remarkable that while purveyors of screen-based tutoring are willing to drag out the highly dismissible two-sigma tutoring paper, nobody seems to be asking about the consequences of virtually erasing peer effects with screen-based education

Education is about relationships, and not just relationships between students and teachers or students and the material, but between students and other students. It is a human activity, best pursued by humans with humans. MacKenzie Price and her 2 Hour Learning are so proud of making learning "efficient" by reducing education to a child spending a couple of hours in front of a screen. Sure. It would be efficient to skip all the talking and kissing and other courtship stuff and just skip straight to getting married (I bet an AI could pick out a suitable mate). It would also be efficient to skip all the messy human interaction and pregnancy and stuff and just have some fertilized eggs brought to maturity in a lab. It would be supremely efficient to take all the humanity out of being human. What would be the point? 

Exceptional, awesome, inefficiently human things happen when students do their learning side by side. We'd be silly to sacrifice that for machine-directed learning.

Here is my favorite John Stuck story. John once made a wrong entrance during a halftime show with such authority that half the band followed him. I'm not sure what lesson we all learned that day, but I feel certain it was a fully human one. 

PA: Career Education Standards for Littles

Coming to Pennsylvania schools this summer is a fine example of how creating academic standards can so easily turn into nonsense.

The state is launching Career Education and Work standards, and they are something else. But why? Well, here's the explanation:

Pennsylvania’s economic future depends on having a well-educated and skilled workforce. Career Education and Work standards reflect the increasing complexity and sophistication that students experience as they progress through school, focusing on the skills and continuous learning and innovation required for students to succeed in a rapidly changing workplace. The standards are written as grade-banded standards built around the concepts of career awareness and exploration, employability skills, growth and advancement, and personal interests and career planning. 

Blah blah blah. I guess it sounds better than simply saying "We need more meat widgets for employers." It's not that employability isn't a worthwhile outcome to shoot for, but when the discussion is framed in terms of what serves the needs of employers instead of what serves the needs of humans it's a bad sign.

But hey-- maybe these standards are actually awesome in a way that standards almost never are. Let's take a look.

Oh boy.

There are four main areas-- Career Awareness and Exploration, Employability Skills, Growth and Advancement, and Personal Interests and Career Planning. 

Now, if you want to see if a set of standards are bunk, check the K-2 band. You can get really silly standards by starting with the outcome you want at graduation, and then working backwards. So you want a high school senior to run a mile in 6 minutes. You just work backwards-- in 11th grade 7 minutes, 10th grade 8 minutes and so on until your standards say you want Kindergarten kids to run a mile in 18 minutes. This makes perfect sense to someone who is thinking about standards and not about actual human children (If you can't see it yet, just keep working backwards--20 minutes for pre-schoolers, 21 minutes for three year olds, and 25 minutes for newborns).

So what are some of the actual standards for K-2 students,

"Identify that there are different ways to prepare for careers" isn't too bad (go ahead and explain "career" to a five year old), but then we get this one:
Identify entrepreneurial character traits of historical and contemporary entrepreneurs and ways to integrate entrepreneurial traits into schoolwide activities and events (e.g., posters to advertise, create ideas).

Yikes. Some are debatable, like "Demonstrate proper and safe Internet and instructional technology use." I understand the value here, but my preferred internet safety technique for the littles (including the board of directors here at the institute) is for them not to use it at all.

Demonstrate cooperation and positive interactions with classmates, recognizing that people have different backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, and ideas.

That one's okay, but I worry that it will prompt a visit from the federal anti-diversity police. 

Build an awareness of the importance of a positive work ethic as a means to learn and grow.

This falls into the classic of problem that this seems like an okay standard, except that it can't be measured objectively.  

Explore career choices and identify the knowledge and skills associated with different types of careers.

Again, we're talking K-2 students.  Also, "Explain how workers in their careers use what is learned in the classroom." The board of directors could perhaps explain that Daddy's job as a writer involves sitting at the computer and whacking away at the keyboard. 

The standards hit some other issues as they move into higher grades. There's some focus on jargon, like learning the 4 P's for entrepreneurial branding (product, price, place and promotion) in 6-8 grade, or setting and achieving SMART goals in 3-5 grade. Grades 3-12 hammer the Entrepreneurial Mindset. 

Perhaps most hilarious is the whole K-12 strand on "develop a personal brand," because at the point in life when a young human is trying to grasp their identity and place in the world, what they should focus on how to "identify ways to market yourself as a job candidate" (grades 6-12). 

The whole exercise has the vibe of some too-serious grey flannel suit standing over an eight year old and barking, "All right kid-- have you figured out what job you want in life?" Plus the unspoken message that this, kid, is what your life is supposed to be about--your job. You can say, well, isn't it helpful to get students to think about their careers and work life, and I'll say, yes, but is that any more important than getting them to think about their actual lives? Should we have standards for their development of a plan for their lives and families and work-life balance as adults?

Well, those decisions are personal and none-of-the-school's business and nearly impossible to plan out because life doesn't work that way and, seriously, you want to talk to a sixth grader about how to live their adult life? Of course some of this sounds like SEL, and some of it falls under the conservative call for "success sequence" instruction. But if you have all of the above objections to requiring seniors to have a Full Personal Life Plan, then why do those objections not also apply to requiring a career plan?

More to the point, how do you manage any of these as standards? How will teachers assess the student development of a personal brand? What will the criteria be? How will teachers assess the required career plan? Will they have to assess its realism? Its completeness? Its accuracy? Will it become a teacher's job to say, "Pat, I know your self-assessment is that you have a keen mind and a wicked sense of humor, but I'm taking off a ton of points because you are actually kind of dull." Will it become a teacher's job to say, "Your career plan calls for you to graduate from med school, but I've had you in biology class and this isn't happening."

I mean, every teacher has wrestled with these sorts of conversation, with some coming down on the side of "Who am I to try to predict this kid's future?" or on the side of "I am going to be the best possible cheerleader for this kid's future" or, occasionally, on the side of "When this kid is a success some day, I'll be the teacher in the anecdote about how they'd never make it." These conversations about the future are part of the gig. But to make them states standards is to make them a part of the measured program, a part of what schools must assess. 

Of course, this may well end up one of those standards that exists as a piece of bureaucratic baloney but is ignored in the classroom. That is probably the best we can hope for. Should we talk to young humans about future plans? Sure. Should career planning be reduced to a set of state standards? No. Actually, hell no. 

Wednesday, May 14, 2025

Federal Voucher Bill Is A Boondoggle For The Wealthy

As I type, the House is marking up a budget bill that has nestled somewhere in its entrails the Education Choice for Children Act, a bill that has little to do with actual school choice and a lot to do with handouts to the wealthy. 

Going in, it was not in any substantial way different from the 2024 edition, which means it included these special features. (Some of this may change quickly this week).

Who qualifies? Pretty much everyone. Proponents will argue that it is aimed at relief to low-income folks, but it very much is not. Here's the trick. The usual "rescue the poors" voucher bill will tie eligibility to some percentage of the federal poverty level (for example, the current voucher proposal in PA sets eligibility at 250% of federal poverty level). But ECCA sets eligibility to a household income under 300% of area median gross income. 

So if you live in Scarsdale, where the median household income is $238,478 per year, then you can earn up to $715,434 a year and still be eligible for a voucher for your kid.

Deluxe tax dodge. These vouchers will use the tax credit scholarship model, which means they will be funded by contributions from donors. Those donors (individual or corporate) get a dollar-for-dollar tax credit; they can contribute up to 5% of their adjusted gross income (or $5,000--whichever is greater). 

That results in a $10 billion dollar revenue hit to the federal government in the original bill (reports say it's now a $5 billion tag). Unless 90% of that cap is used up for a "high use calendar year" in which case the cap goes up another 5%. That all represents money that the federal government doesn't get, leading to either cut services or more deficit.

The bill also lets the GOP dodge voters. Vouchers continue to have a problem-- voters don't vote for them. Ever. Last fall we saw, once again, that even when voters vote for Trump, they vote against vouchers. ECCA-- like every other piece of voucher legislation ever-- gets around the problem of voters by simply leaving them out of the deal. What do the voters in your state want? House Republicans don't care. 

ECCA telegraphs its focus by saying very little about the vouchers themselves. What can they be used for? Buncha stuff. How much will the vouchers be? Will they be enough to let a poor child go to a high cost school? Doesn't say-- let the scholarship granting organization figure it out. Any mechanisms for making sure that education vendors are not fraudsters? None. Any oversight mechanisms to determine where the money went, how it was spent, whether it actually did any good? Nope. The only time oversight comes up is in the usual Hands Off clause declaring that the government can have no say in how the money is spent, nor can it tell private edu-vendors how to do their thing, even and especially if they are a private religious school with a whole batch of discriminatory policies. It's a federal subsidy for discrimination-- discrimination against persons because of LGBTQ status, religious beliefs, behavioral or academic issues, or just any old unnamed reason (though it now includes some weak protections for students with special needs). 

There is not a speck of this bill aimed at the issue of making sure that young humans get a decent education. That is at the heart of much of the voucher movement, which is less about getting every child in this country a decent education and more about turning education into a commodity that is strictly the responsibility of parents, while the government just washes its hands of that whole promise of a decent education for every child. Not our problem, parents. You're on your own. 

The genius of ECCA is that it combines the end of the American promise of public education with a bunch of goodies for the wealthy. We already know that school vouchers are used primarily by folks who already have their kids in private schools, and this certainly includes that feature, but ECCA adds a tasty tax shelter on top. 

It remains to be seen how the bill will look when folks are done marking up and fending off various Democratic amendments. But there's no version that isn't an assault on the very idea of public education, no version that doesn't foster discrimination, no version that isn't mostly about one more gift to the wealthy. Call your rep and say no. 

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

GOP Proposes Unregulated AI

The current regime may not have a clue what AI actually is, but they are determined to get out in front of it.

First we had Dear Leader's bonkers executive order back in April to set up an AI task force that would create an AI challenge that would boost the use of AI in education. Plus "improving education through artificial intelligence" (an especially crazypants turn of phrase) that would 
seek to establish public-private partnerships with leading AI industry organizations, academic institutions, nonprofit entities, and other organizations with expertise in AI and computer science education to collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K-12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills.

Does the person who whipped this together think AI and critical thinking are a package, or does this construction acknowledge that AI and critical thinking are two separate things? The eo also promises all sorts of federal funding to back all this vague partnering. The eo also contains this sad line:

the Secretary of Education shall identify and implement ways to utilize existing research programs to assist State and local efforts to use AI for improved student achievement, attainment, and mobility.

"Existing research programs"? Are there some? And "achievement, attainment, and mobility" mean what? 

The eo also touts using Title II funds for boosting AI training for teachers, like reducing "time-intensive administrative tasks" and training that would help teachers "effectively integrate AI-based tools and modalities in classrooms."

Bureaucratic bloviating. Fine. Whatever. But House Republicans decided to take their game up a notch this week by adding this tasty piece of baloney. Budget reconciliation now includes this chunk of billage. The first part has to do with selling off some pieces of the broadcast spectrum, but the second part--

no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10- year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

There are exceptions, mostly of the "anything that helps AI companies expand or make money is okay" variety.

A ban on AI regulation is dumb, particularly given that folks are still trying to figure out what it can or can't do. 

But a ban on regulation for the next decade??!! Who knew that the GOP would be involved in launching Skynet? 

"Sir, it looks like Skynet is about to send something called a terminator to kill us all. Should we take action to prevent it?"

"Stand down, kid. The Republican party has forbidden us to take action. Kiss your children goodbye."

Seriously, we can already see that AI is taking us to some undesirable places, and God only knows what might develop over the next decade. To tie our regulatory hands, to unilaterally disarm and give up any ability to put restraints on the cyber-bull in our cultural china shop is just foolish.

Of course, what the proposed anti-regulation and the eo have in common is that they prioritize the chance for corporations to profit from AI. That's common to many actions of the regime, all based on the notion that there is nothing so precious in our country or culture that it should be protected from impulse to make a buck. What the GOP proposes is a "drill, baby, drill" for AI with the nation's youths, education system, and culture playing the part of the great outdoors.

Anti-regulation for AI is worse than the other brands of deregulation being pushed, because while we have some idea what deforesting a national park might look like, we have no way of imagining what may appear under the banner of AI in the next ten years. New ways to steal content for training? Out of control faux humans who intrude in scary and dangerous ways? Whole new versions of identity theft? There are so many terrible AI ideas out there (international diplomacy by AI, anyone) and so many more to come--even as AI may be actually getting worse at doing its thing. Not all of them need to be regulated, but to pre-emptively deregulate the industry, dark future unseen, in the hopes of cashing in-- that's venal, careless stupidity of the highest order.