ICYMI: Maple Syrup Edition (3/22)

A little field trip yesterday to a maple syrup producing farm, where they are boiling the last catch of the season. If you are used to the picture of a bucket hanging under a tap on a tree, I can tell you that more modern operations involve a tap hooked to a hose that runs through a network of other hoses to a main collection tank that uses some suction to collect the sap. Lot of technical steps after that, too, mostly involving some impressive machinery. However, I feel confident that AI will not take over the maple industry any time soon.

In the meantime, here's this week's reading list. In case you're new here, let me mention that A) this list generally doesn't include any pieces that I referenced or wrote about during the week and B) your mission is to take any pieces that you think are particularly valuable and amplify them through your own channels.

Public schools bombarded by families scrambling for special education assessments tied to Texas voucher money

Texas has a voucher system that incentivizes specials needs (if your child has them, you get extra taxpayer dollars). So now a bunch of parents want their public school to certify that their child has special needs so that those parents can pull that child out of public school.

The "Education Freedom" Myth Gets Its Wild West Makeover

Josh Cowen hates to say he told them so, but when it comes to Texas and their taxpayer-funded vouchers, he told them so. Includes lots of useful links to research.

Punishing Children: Why the Attack on Plyler v. Doe Is an Attack on America’s Core Values

You may not know much about Plyler, but you're going to hear about it plenty. Bruce Lesley explains why it's a big deal.

Highest performing Ohio Charter Schools still have 30% Ds and Fs on State Report Card. Public School Districts have 30% As.

Stephen Dyer breaks down some numbers, and they provide one more piece of proof of the mediocrity of Ohio charter schools.

Moms for Liberty’s “Toxic” Tiffany Justice Is Out at Heritage

Maurice Cunningham caught an interesting piece of news this week-- Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice lasted less than a year in her cushy Heritage Foundation gig.

When Literacy Reform Meets the Classroom

Cooper Sved at the Albert Shanker Institute blog writes about the miserable crap that happens when someone wants to teach but they have to wrestle with tightly standardized curriculum in a box instead.

Massachusetts: Highest Court Says Charter School Must Comply With State Public-Records Law

Shawgi Tell checks in on another court case in which charter schools try to avoid the whole public-or-private question. 

A viral case against screens in schools is winning converts. Does the evidence hold up?

I am so glad that Matt Barnum is back at Chalkbeat. In this piece, he looks at the growing argument that points at screens as the culprits behind the great test score dip.

America’s math and reading scores tanked after schools ditched textbooks for screens—and AI could worsen the brain rot

Meanwhile, Sasha Rogelberg is helping push that same theory at Fortune.

KY bill pushing religion over school education is immoral

Kentucky is considering one of those bills that mandates letting students out of school to go attend a "moral instruction" class. Linda Allewalt argues this is, in fact, immoral.

Arizona ESA LEGO Spending

Jen Jennings has been digging through the Arizona taxpayer-funded voucher spending and fining some real whoppers. These graphics look at just the spending on LEGOs alone.

Conservative parents and teachers unions become unlikely allies fighting tech in schools

I told you a couple of weeks ago that M4L was sounding not-crazy on ed tech. Some state unions are deciding the same thing.

Our Experience with i-Ready

Not good. The experience was not good. But if you are wondering why people complain about i-Ready, this will give you plenty of specifics. If you already know, this will let you know you're not alone. This is painful.

Failing Up: From Nashville to Chicago

TC Weber provides a ground-level example of yet another one of these guys who never, ever suffer for their failure. Watch out, Chicago-- he's headed your way.

April 1st: Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments on Trump’s Exec. Order to Deny Birthright Citizenship

Jan Resseger remains the queen of explaining what the heck is going on and what people have to say about it.

Grade Retention: The Debate Had Its Day, Now End It!

Nancy Bailey provides some final words on the eternal debate about holding students back a grade.

The False Promise of Education "Miracles" and Misunderstanding Standardized Test Scores

Paul Thomas looks at the history of education miracles, and what it can tell us about any current reading miracles, like the one in Mississippi.

AI Is Coming For Your Job (and Mine Too)

Jennifer Berkshire checks to see if her job is in danger, and if the dream of retraining and education can protect anybody.

AI ‘Slop’ Is Flooding Children’s Media. Parents Should Be Very Alarmed.

Emily Tate Sullivan at The 74 has an important story about the tidal wave of AI slop aimed at children who are using Youtube or other video platforms. If you are the parent of such a child, you need to read this.

Heather Cox Richardson talks to Josh Cowen

It's an interview on Youtube with America's leading daily historian talking to one of the biggest experts on the problems of school vouchers. Well worth 40 minutes of your time.

Measles Is Back on the Faculty Meeting Agenda

Matt Brady goes down the measles rabbit hole and bring backs information about the disease and advice about how to deal with it in school.

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance: Kochtopus Flunkey

Maurice Cunningham, the dark money expert, finds the Koch machine spreading its tentacles again in Massachusetts.

This High School Student Invented a Filter That Eliminates 96 Percent of Microplastics From Drinking Water

Just a reminder that high school students can accomplish pretty extraordinary things.

Meanwhile, at Forbes.com, I looked at a measure of teacher morale across the country, and a court case that used some interesting ju jitsu to keep prayer out of the classroom in Louisiana.

I like music that finds new ways to re-create itself, and I love musicians who are having fun doing their thing, so I love this version of a song that is not exactly a classic.

Subscribe! It's quick, easy, and cheap!

PA: An AI Safety Bill

In Pennsylvania, a bipartisan group is pushing SB 1090, a bill "providing for disclosures and safeguards relating to the use of artificial intelligence." 

It's short and sweet and doesn't go far enough, but it's something. The meat of it is in these next few bits:

Disclosure of nonhuman status.--If a reasonable person interacting with an AI companion would be misled to believe the person is interacting with a human, an operator shall issue a clear and conspicuous notification indicating that the AI companion is artificially generated and not human.

"Reasonable person" is doing a hell of a lot of work here. 

The bill would also require AI "operators" to "maintain and implement a protocol" to prevent its bots from producing suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content to users, or content that directly encourages the user to commit acts of violence. That protocol should include suicide hotline or crisis text line if the user expresses thoughts about self-harm.

Even better, the bill would require that if "the operator knows or should have known" that the user is a minor, they must provide notification that the user is not interacting with a human being. They must also provide a "clear and conspicuous notification" at least once every three hours that the user should take a break and, again, that they are talking to a non-human bot. The AI should also be prevented from producing sexually explicit images or giving the minor instructions on sexually explicit conduct. 

Bots also have to come with a cyber-label saying "this might not be suitable for minors."

The Attorney General gets to enforce this. The state can fine an operator up to $10,000 for each violation (on top of any other remedies provided by law). $10K is, of course, couch cushion money for most tech companies, but this whole law is a hell of a lot better than one more chorus "Everyone better get their kids on AI before they are left behind in the awesome world of tomorrow that AI is going to launch any day now." Dragging them into court is the only thing that might get our tech overlords' attention, so it's encouraging to see legislatures showing a willingness to make that happen. 

ICYMI: Out Of The Office Edition (3/15)

I am away from the Curmudgucation Institute home base this weekend, off to a whirlwind trip to the Seattle branch office, so the reading list may not be as rigorous as usual. And the time difference may factor in as well. 

How Did This Happen???

Jennifer Berkshire observes that as backlash against ed tech grows, some folks seem to have conveniently forgotten who pushed some of this stuff in the first place.

Nebraska braces for latest private school funding, vouchers fight, now eyeing $3.5M

Let's throw more money at private schools, declares Nebraska's governor. Zach Wendling reports for Nebraska Examiner.

One-third of Arizona school districts at financial risk amid ESA growth

In the race to privatize public schools into oblivion, Arizona is a leader. A new report shows how many school districts are in trouble in the voucher state. Steven Sarabia has the story for Arizona's Family.

Taxpayer-funded school vouchers used for Disneyland trips

Speaking of Arizona's taxpayer-funded vouchers, Craig Harris at 12News has been doing outstanding work as the news unit digs into what, exactly, those Arizona taxpayer-funded vouchers are being spent on (spoiler alert: not education).

Demand for student teacher stipends outstrips supply as Shapiro proposes boosting program

Pennsylvania started giving student teachers a stipend, and that program is going pretty well. Yes, there's an old farty part of me that says Kids These Days should just suck it up like we did Back in My Day. But as a Pennsylvanian who wishes we were way better at attracting and retaining teachers, I have to admit this makes sense.

Teaching Writing is Personal.

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider writes about teaching writing.

Are public schools part of the government, civil society, or both?\

This week, in the Posts Worth Reading By People I Generally Disagree With, Mike Petrilli says folks should stop calling public schools "government schools." 

MAGA Promotes “Same Old” Dangerous School Vouchers with a New “Culture War” Frame\

As always, Jan Resseger does a fine job of bringing together some excellent commentary on the continuing trouble of privatizing school.

Hate Definitely Has a Home Here

Nancy Flanagan wonders where we are as a nation, and how teachers are supposed to deal with it.

The Alarm Bell Experiment (n=1)

Matt Brady tries consuming a teen style online video diet, and he learns a few things in the process.

The AI Education Grift

Thomas Ultican has some doubts about the intentions of the AI-in-education crowd.

When Correlation Repeats Across 50 States

Jared Cooney Horvath is an author and scholar who did some research looking at the connection between those drooping NAEP scores and a state's digital adoption, and the results are... not good.

Logged In, Tuned Out

Meredith Coffey walks us through the last fifteen years of ed tech in this piece for the often=ignorable Education Next. But this piece has some solid sections (at last, someone who agrees with me that "digital natives" are not all that tech savvy). 

‘I wish I could push ChatGPT off a cliff’: professors scramble to save critical thinking in an age of AI

Alice Speri at The Guardian collects a few pointed reactions to the rise of AI and the attempts to resist.

Against Maxxing

John Warner looks at the bizarre world of maxxing and shares some thoughts (including education maxxing). "We are just fine as we are, my fellow humans."

Gullible, Cynical America

Adam Serwer at the Atlantic writes about how many of us have become both disbelievers and suckers all at the same time.

Class Action Alleges That Grammarly Misappropriated the Names of Journalists and Authors Through its “Expert Review” That Lets Users Get Feedback on Writing From Experts

The grifters at Grammarly have unloaded a new scam, and this time they're getting taken to court over it. May they lose, big time. More details here. 

Some music is best played on the back porch, maybe even with a dog. 

Subscribe and get everything I throw out into the world thrown into your email. 

Netflix Chief Ready To Help DFER Fix Education

Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) is delighted to announce that Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix, has joined their board, "bringing a disruptor's lens to education." That seems about right.

First, a reminder of who DFER really are. One of the key founders of DFER is Whitney Tilson, a big time hedge fund manager (you can read more about him here). Long ago, Leonie Haimson had a great quote from the film version of Tilson's magnum opus about ed reform, "A Right Denied," and it's a dream of mine that every time somebody searches for DFER on line, this quote comes up.

The real problem, politically, was not the Republican party, it was the Democratic party. So it dawned on us, over the course of six months or a year, that it had to be an inside job. The main obstacle to education reform was moving the Democratic party, and it had to be Democrats who did it, it had to be an inside job. So that was the thesis behind the organization. And the name – and the name was critical – we get a lot of flack for the name. You know, “Why are you Democrats for education reform? That’s very exclusionary. I mean, certainly there are Republicans in favor of education reform.” And we said, “We agree.” In fact, our natural allies, in many cases, are Republicans on this crusade, but the problem is not Republicans. We don’t need to convert the Republican party to our point of view…

DFER's mission has always been to convince Democrats that they should be backing ed reform ideas from the right. It's standard to find them trying hard to convince Democrats that it would be a winning strategy, like the recent NYT piece by their chief Jorge Elorza in which he tries to sell taxpayer-funded school vouchers.

Hastings, meanwhile, is a long time fan of school choice programs. Hastings has been plenty active in the charter sector, managing to help push through the California law that not only did away with charter caps, but made it possible to run a chain of charters with just one (unelected) board. Unelected is how he likes them-- in 2014 he told the California School Boards Association in fairly clear terms that elected school boards were a scourge and should be done away with.

Hastings likes to note that way back in the day, he was a teacher. That was with the Peace Corps in Swaziland over 40 years ago. But he's been a busy edu-preneur for decades, and he certainly knows all the classic bits.

There's the whole "unchanged classroom" shtick. Hastings sees schools as being like the entertainment biz thirty years ago-- "a model built for a different era" and has often claimed that "the traditional classroom model—one teacher, 20-to-50 students, sage-on-a-stage—is ripe for reinvention." He declares "the schools of the future won't look like the schools of the past," which is his one accurate observation, though he could easily note that the schools of the present don't look like the schools of the past. Lord, they were ushering the sage off the stage back when I was in teacher school. 

Paired with that is the claim that "Netflix replaced a one-size-fits-all broadcast model with something more personal and responsive," which is just a silly claim. In 1997, when Netflix launched, cable tv was achieving great new heights of variety. Hell, Fox News launched in 1996. Back then, boys and girls, cable provided actual variety before free market forces pushed cable channels to become barely distinguishable imitations of each other (you know, back when MTV played music and A&E stood for Arts and Entertainment, and there were two comedy channels). The broadcast model was already well and fully disrupted, and the only thing that Netflix disrupted was the practice of having to go to the store to rent DVDs. 

So guess what Hastings thinks is the key to this new shift in education? Here's a hint-- as of last year, Hastings is on the board of Anthropic, the big AI company.

"AI is a once-in-a-thousand-year shift, and what happens in K-12 is at the center of it,” Hastings continued. “The schools that figure out how to combine individualized software with teachers focused on social-emotional development are going to unlock something we’ve never seen before."

Individualized computer instruction is definitely a thing we've seen before, though what we've seen is the many ways that it crashes and burns and fails to deliver its many promises. There is no reason to believe that the newest iteration of the giant plagiarism machines is likely to change that, no reason to believe that education delivered through a screen is somehow superior to education involving other humans, both as teachers and as co-students. Hastings believes AI can help make education more personal, which highlights how oxymoronic it is to propose personalization that is delivered by non-persons. 

"He sees AI enabling a shift where teachers become more like coaches and build deep relationships with students."

Why does he see that? How does he see that happening? Could it be that replacing teachers with "coaches" solves that nasty labor problem with schools and helps make them more profitable? And yes, his description sounds very much like Alpha School, a ridiculous school model that is somehow beloved these days with its assertion that students can get a full education with two hours per day on computer. It's technoamnesia all over again, as folks just seem to forget that we have seen this model tried and failed. AI will make it better by... being more expensive, in every sense of the word?

Oh well. DFER and Hastings are just as dangerous to public education separately as they are together. May they have many lovely meetings together

The Great Screen Debate

Well, maybe not even a debate. More like a holding action.

Because the Chief Marital Officer (CMO) teaches elementary school and I spent decades teaching high school, we were clear from Day One that the Board of Directors would grow up with minimal screen exposure. They have always gotten a little bit of tv time (about 45 minutes a day, now that they're older) and always with a grownup watching along. A weekly family movie. No personal devices. Lots of reading, lots of books, lots of play (including being left to suffer the kind of boredom that births improvisational self-entertainment). 

Then it was time for school. And like the parents in Jackie Mader's Hechinger piece about ed tech pushback, we had to deal with new heavy exposure of the boys to screens. 

It was probably less of a shock to us because of our professional background. My high school went one-to-one with mini-laptops back in 2010, plunging us immediately into the many problems that come with such an ed tech initiative.

Ed tech is like every other kind of tech-- some of it is magnificently useful, some of it is a waste of time and money, some of it is crap, and some of it is dangerous crap. And being selective really matters. My high school used a program to gamify math for struggling students, and it was awful, particularly in the way that it would only accept a correct answer if it was typed in exactly the way the program wanted it (imagine a program that tells a student that 2x5=10 is correct, but 5x2=10 is incorrect). The Board of Directors have gotten much of their math instruction via a computer program (Reflex Math), and as much as it pains me, they seem to have actually learned well from it, buoyed up by the way the program lets them move on to the next thing the instant they are ready to go. 

I was a yearbook advisor who lived through the transition from paper layouts and photos to all-computerized desktop publishing and digital photography, and you could not have paid me a zillion dollars to step backwards. 

Too many districts have been unwilling or unable to ask the most basic questions when adopting ed tech ("Is this program junk?") and so students spend a lot of time in front of screens that are wasting time and providing zero educational benefit. That and the possibility of screen "addiction," with students hooked on the same sort of rushes that bring grown-ups back on line too often. 

And screens in school inevitably have a "leakage" problem. Students with a few extra minutes of screen time use it to surf Youtube or whatever else the school's filters won't stop. Cheap districts that use lower-level subscriptions expose students to resources that "leak" ads onto student eyeballs. The Board of Directors had never seen a video advertisement until they went to school, which seems... backwards somehow. 

Meanwhile, the ed tech is an ad. When it turned out that Google's education products are about "creating a pipeline of future users," no educators were surprised.

The last twenty-or-so years of ed tech were sold with the same sort of pitches that are now employed for new AI baloney. Don't let your students be left behind! This is the inevitable face of tomorrow and you want your students to be prepared! This tech will provide miraculous leaps in learning (just don't ask us for proof). 

Richard Culatta, CEO of ISTE+ASCD (motto: "Let us jam ed tech directly into your veins!") is in Mader's piece with the usual baloney

When kids hate learning because it’s boring, it will have far more damaging consequences than if they are playing a game that is helping them find learning more interesting

Sigh. No. First, you know who doesn't find something interesting just because it's pixels on a screen? People who have grown up in a world stuffed full of pixels on screens. Second, when you spend years around teenagers with phones, one thing you notice quickly is that a fascinating new app generally has a half-life of about four weeks. Culatta also trots out this old chestnut

We do have to be really careful that we don’t actually end up harming kids by taking away tools that are really helpful for them for their future

Nope. No student is going to lose ground in reading or math or history or art or music because she didn't have access to EduBlart3000 on her screen. 

And I myself once bought the idea that students could benefit from exposure to tech tools so that they were better able to use those tools in the future. I have changed my mind. First, the tools schools teach them to use now will be long gone in the future and second, we are well into the stage in which tech tools can be learned quickly. 

Lawmakers across the country are scaring the crap out of tech companies by contemplating restrictions on screens in schools. That new wave yielded this hilarious quote to NBC from Kieth Kruger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, an ed tech trade organization. 

I think some well-intentioned policymakers trying to do something are rushing so quickly that they haven’t thought through the implications.

Ironic, given that the ed tech industry's motto has always been "Buy our stuff RIGHT NOW and don't pause to think through the implications."

Well, the implications of years of screens in classrooms are starting to catch up with us. Check out Jared Cooney Horvath's set of graphs showing that the much-lamented dip in test scores seems to line up with digital adoption. Endless teacher anecdotes of students having trouble focusing, paying attention, just plain sticking with something for more than five minutes. Increasing numbers of studies suggesting that screens have hurt learning-- and (horrors) news that ed tech companies aren't making mountains of money! 

And yet, as Jennifer Berkshire points out, absolute amnesia about how we got here. Folks who cheerfully burbled about the promise of ed tech are now shocked-- shocked!!-- that screens have been allowed to dominate classrooms. Not a surprise-- as Audrey Watters has repeatedly pointed out over the years, the story of ed tech is the story of enthusiastic promises, joyous press coverage, and expensive failure, all wrapped in a blanket of sweet, sweet forgetfulness.

The amnesia would be funny if we weren't already being dragged into the next wave of ed tech, the one powered by "Artificial Intelligence," a marketing term designed to put a pretty, inevitable face on a morally bankrupt industry. "Come take a kick at this hot new ed tech idea! It's inevitable! It's awesome! This time it really will change everything!" 

We're still getting back up from the last faked kickoff. Here's hoping we think twice before we fall for this again. 

ICYMI: The River Is Rising Edition (3/8)

The Institute's grounds back up against the river, and the waters are rising. It has been a combination of rising heat hitting a lot of snow, and a steady rain. The river never rises all at once, but slowly and steadily, as combined forces drive it slowly and steadily over its bank. It's a natural process; as it rises, the waters will sweep away the garbage, detritus, and goose poop that have accumulated on the banks. We root for the river to rise far enough to sweep the area clean.

Meanwhile, a varied assortment of education reading this week. Have at it. 

Don't Talk to Me About the Factory Model of Education

Dylan Kane takes on everyone's favorite counter-factual education talking point. 

Experts liken potential Supreme Court reversal of school funding rulings to overturning Roe v. Wade

Hyperbole? Maybe-- but the New Hampshire Supreme Court is taking a whack at the landmark Claremont decisions, another of those court decisions that tell a state it can't keep half-assing public education funding. But the NH GOP would really like to just half-ass public education funding, so here we are. Jeremy Margolis reports for the Concord Monitor.

A Backdoor School Voucher Scheme That Sidesteps Civil Rights and Undermines Public Oversight

At The Century Foundation, Kayla Patrick and Loredana Valtierra have produced an excellent explainer of the federal voucher program. Great for forwarding to that person who keeps insisting that the state ought to grab some of that free money.

State Law: Ohio's "Dropout Recovery" Charter Schools don't actually need to have any "dropouts". What they do need, though, is less accountability.

Stephen Dyer explains another charter school scam ripping off Ohio taxpayers. Saving dropouts? Not so much.

Nearly half of Ohio’s teachers say they may quit teaching; morale lags national average: Report

Speaking of Ohio, the new Ed Weeks survey suggests that Ohio excels in making teachers regret their career choices.

Zooming Out

Steve Nuzum explains what really drives all those book bans (spoiler alert: it is not deep concern for children).

The plot to replace teachers with tech

John Allen Wooden provides an absolutely blistering takedown of i-Ready.

Louisiana's 10 Commandments Law Marks a Critical Step Toward Christian Nationalism

Lorena O'Neil at Rolling Stone looks at 10 commandments laws in the context of rising Christian nationalism and its designs on schools.

Why Your School District Is Losing Its Leaders

Drew Perkins explains how the culture wars are driving leaders out of school districts.

The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment

The National Education Policy Center presents some research from Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza supporting what you already knew-- the constant attacks on public schools lead to policies that hurt those schools.

ProPublica Sues Education Department for Withholding Records About Discrimination in Schools

Good luck to them.

America’s teachers are working two jobs and barely getting by

CNN reports on a new survey that shows many teachers are having trouble getting by. In other news, sun expected to rise in East tomorrow. But Matt Egan does report some details and data.

Trump aims to shrink the Education Department — while Washington tightens its grip on schools

Matt Barnum captures the duality of this administration. On the one hand, they want to kill federal education oversight; on the other hand, they would like to micromanage local school policies that they don't like.

At least $7.2 million in taxpayer funds has been spent on LEGO sets through Arizona's school voucher program

Craig Harris ay 12News continues to dig deep and find out just how badly Arizona's taxpayer-funded voucher program is ripping off the taxpayers.

Florida Once Rewarded Academic Success. Now It Prorates It.

Sue Kingery Woltanski reports the latest Florida shenanigans, this time involving quietly cutting funds for a program that actually worked.

Ben Albritton’s priorities — rural spending and school voucher fixes — seem dead

Meanwhile, attempts to fix a system that can't even keep track of students will apparently stall once again.

The Backlash Against School Vouchers Is Showing Up at the Polls

Jennifer Berkshire continues to be a voice crying the wilderness that vouchers are a losing issue for elections, and maybe somebody ought to mention that in coverage.

"AI" is Yesterday's News

If you ever have a chance to hear Audrey Watters speak, do not pass it up. Here's a talk she gave to the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and it highlights, with humor and unexpected connections, the hollowness of the AI education promise.

About that School Trump Referred to in the State of the Union Address…

Nancy Bailey takes a look at Alpha School, a massive techno-scam that somehow keeps drawing glowing press.

A Simple Idea That Could Change Things for Kids: Child Impact Statements

Bruce Lesley has a great idea. Government will never adopt it--but they should.

Heritage Foundation Strategizes and State Legislatures Propose Laws to Deny Free Public Schools to Undocumented Children

Jan Resseger looks at the latest initiative from those big-hearted clowns at Heritage. One more court decision to overturn.

Test Scores Tell You Who Your Child Beat, Not What Your Child Knows

Akil Bello reacts to a recent Jill Barshay article chicken littling parental favoring of grades over Big Standardized Test results. It's a great critique of the grades vs. test scores debate.

No one wants to read your AI slop

Cory Doctorow on the habit of tagging in AI to rebut arguments. Worth it for this quote--"There simply is no substitute for learning about a subject and coming to understand it well enough to advance the subject, whether by contributing your own additions or by critiquing its flaws."

Former UM president Seth Bodnar officially launches campaign as independent vs. Daines

Montana's Senate race is turning out to be a complicated mess, but allow me to endorse this guy. He's a former student of mine and you won't find a better human being on the planet.

At the Bucks County Beacon, I reviewed a new plan-shaped report aimed at sort of fixing the problems of recruiting and retaining teachers. 

This is from the memorial concert for George Harrison. Lots of layers here, but the performance itself is quite a reading of the song.

Subscription is free. I don't want your money-- give it one of the other fine writers about education. But your subscription raises my numbers which in turn increases my visibility and gets the word out. 

Teach For Awhile For America

Wendy Kopp, the woman who hatched Teach for America, popped up in The Atlantic with an odd reflection on "first jobs" and teaching, and, well, there's a lot of subtext to unpack. After "four decades trying to inspire young people... to work directly with low-income communities," Kopp has some thoughts.

She opens with the story of Jack, who was trying to decide whether or not to go the TFA route, and jumps from there to bigger ideas:

Policy makers and philanthropists aren’t particularly focused on first jobs. But these choices matter—and not only for the individuals beginning their careers. If we want to address society’s most deeply rooted challenges—poverty, polarization, environmental degradation, geopolitical conflict—we need to encourage young people to work on these issues early in their careers, so they can grow into leaders capable of solving them.

In other words, going into teaching as a "first job" doesn't really help anybody, but it gives TFA members the exposure to issues so that they can move on to leadership roles where they can actually accomplish something. You know-- real jobs where the real work gets done. 

This is in line with the longtime criticism of TFA that it's for rich white kids from elite universities to get an "experience" being briefly exposed to the poors.

It also points to the less-acknowledged problem of TFA. Plenty has been said about TFA's disrespect for career teachers ("Step aside, Grandma, and let me show you how we smart Ivy Leaguers get the job done") and the absurd condescension of insisting that a top college kid can pretty much master the work in a five week training. But over time it has become clear that a wider danger of TFA is that it keeps producing a bunch of reformster amateur edu-preneurs who go into business and government claiming to have been "in teaching" because they spent two years in a classroom somewhere. 

TFA has certainly produced some folks who became real teachers and embarked on real teaching careers-- which I guess would be a disappointment to Kopp, who was rooting for them to zip through their two-year first job so they could get on to important leaderly jobs of solving the world's problems.

Her story of Jack defies parody:

While teaching in Harlem, Jack saw that a lack of resources made failure seem inevitable for the kids at his school. He also saw the incredible resilience and character of the students, families, and teachers. He realized just how entrenched inequity in education is, but he gained confidence in his ability to help address it. Jack is now in his first year at Columbia Law School.

Yup. Jack went face to face with the challenges of poverty, saw what strengths were there, grabbed ahold of the problems of teaching in a low-resource classroom and decided-- to go to law school. But don't worry-- Kopp assures us that he "hopes to litigate for increased funding for education and better compliance with anti-discrimination and disability-rights laws."

But Kopp just can't stop. "Research confirms that working close to the roots of social issues early in one’s career fundamentally reshapes a person’s beliefs and life trajectory." And she connects some of that research to TFA, showing that yes, TFA is great because it provides an important formative experience for the TFA members. The actual students should, I guess, be happy to provide a useful learning experience for those college grads. It's almost as great as if someone provided learning for those students.

Kopp reminds us that her generation was known as the Me Generation. But offering a "prestigious alternative to the corporate track" those college grads proved to be more "idealistic and civically committed than people assumed." So the trick was, I guess, offering a prestigious alternative like TFA and not a non-prestigious alternative like an actual teaching career. 

Kopp comes real close to some insights here--

In 2024, 35 percent of Yale’s senior class entering the workforce chose jobs in finance and consulting; add tech into the mix, and the share rises to 46 percent. At other schools—including Harvard, Princeton, Claremont McKenna, and Vanderbilt—at least half of the graduating class moved into those three fields. Meanwhile, the data I’ve seen on the share of students taking jobs close to inequity and injustice suggest a decline across the same period.

Ah, but Wendy-- those graduates going into those fields are taking jobs close to inequity and injustice. They're just close to the winning side of those issues.  

Some students, of course, feel they can’t afford to pursue less immediately lucrative careers. But if this was all that was holding graduates back, you’d expect to see more kids from wealthy backgrounds taking these jobs. Yet students from the highest-income backgrounds are the least likely to enter into public service and the most likely to pursue the corporate path.

Huh. Rich people don't want to help poor people, and don't even want to be around them? I feel like there's a really deep vein to be tapped here, but Kopp isn't going there.

Kopp points out that the corporate track has a well-funded recruitment arm and that colleges are eager to hoover up some of that money in a sort of collegiate product placement. 

Kopp also sees an opportunity in the AI onslaught. Maybe, since AI is going to do all the entry level jobs, companies could "push back their recruiting timelines" while grads go out and get some human skill jobs, in communities tackling social problems. Not, mind you, that she thinks the grads should stay in that first job:

And young people themselves, even those who might want to run a major company someday, would benefit immensely from devoting the early years of their careers to such challenges.

Get those humaning skills, then move on to your real job.

There are so many blind spots in Kopp's essay, like her observation that "High schools should inspire students to step outside of their comfort zone and wrestle with pressing social issues," as if there are thousands of high schools where the students wrestle with pressing social issues every single day. Philips Exeter Academy is not a typical high school.

But mostly is this whole notion that the direct social work of the world should be done by fresh-faced college grads who only stay for a couple of years before they go on to the real lifetime work of, perhaps, amassing money or political power by occasionally remembering the social issues that they observed up close for a brief time. What does a school system look like when it is staffed mainly by people who never stay long enough to actually get good at the work of teaching? And are those people really fit "experts" to lead the world of education policy? 

Takes me back to two classics from The Onion-- the point/counterpoint "My Year Volunteering As A Teacher Helped Educate A New Generation Of Underprivileged Kids vs. Can We Please, Just Once, Have A Real Teacher" and "Teach For America Celebrates 3 Decades Of Helping Recent Graduates Pad Out Law School Applications." I'm going to reread those now to get the taste of Kopp's ideas out of my head. 

ICYMI: Oh Great A New Frickin' War Edition (3/1)

It's hard to really capture the many levels on which the US attack on Iran is just stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. I'm not going to get into it here-- there is plenty of press about it and you probably couldn't miss it if you wanted to. But I surely hope that you are badgering your Congressperson.

In the meantime, the business of helping a country be less stupid remains super-important, so we will continue to pay attention. Here's your list for the week.

Center for Christian Virtue is the new White Hat Management, just as Jesus intended

You may remember White Hat Management, an outfit that really mastered the art of scamming their way to rolling up taxpayer dollars via school choice. Stephen Dyer says someone else is also showing that kind of self-enriching skill-- but with more Jesus.

Ohio school district bans ‘Hate has no home here’ poster from classroom

One Ohio district apparently doesn't want to get caught discriminating against the haters. Cliff Pinckard reports for Cleveland.com.

Private-school owners: Florida’s biggest voucher-funding group is hurting us

Florida's voucher-funding system is a mess, and some private school operators are getting big sad about it. Natalie La Roche Pietri reports for the Miami Herald.

Senators find out what you get when you ask for "disruption" in education.

South Carolina legislators wrote themselves a big ole taxpayer-funded school choice law, but now they are sad that some folks are getting money that the legislators didn't intend to give money to. Steve Nuzum explains.

Overselling the Mississippi Miracle

Jennifer Berkshire reminds us that while Mississippi may have helped its fourth graders get better reading scores, it is still a systemically bad place for children to grow up.

The Great AI-in-Education Paradox

Paul Thomas looks at one of the mysteries of the great AI push for education-- if students learn about AI by using AI, how do they learn anything?

Public School Profiteering in Stockton

Thomas Ultican takes us to Stockton, CA, for yet another demonstration of how to get rich in the charter school biz.

Lost in the Noise: A Major Shift in Florida School Choice

It was certain to happen-- turf wars over the highly profitable school privatization biz in Florida. Sue Kingery Woltanski has the inside scoop.

The 100-Point Scale Is a Design Flaw

Matt Brady explains why the 100 point grading scale is a flawed design. 

Gifted and Talented Redux

Nancy Flanagan considers the proper role of gifted programs (and why it's such a touchy subject for some folks).

Secret Agent Man

Audrey Watters offers a wealth of links this week, looking through the world of Ai and training and literacy and other messy ed tech detritus. Have you subscribed to her newsletter yet, because you should.

McMahon Continues Dismantling Dept. of Education. Will She Succeed?

Jan Resseger breaks down the latest rounds of assaults on the education department. 

Google and ISTE+ASCD announce new partnership to destroy US education

I covered this news, but Benjamin Riley really brings an appropriate amount of rage to the discussion.

Massachusetts Board of Higher Education Betrays Working Class Students

Maurice Cunningham looks at the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education's plan to offer second-rate degrees to working class students. Not a great idea.

Meta patents AI that keeps users posting after they die

I used to joke that I would teach until death and then have my body stuffed and mounted with animatronics so I could keep working in my classroom. Apparently META is now on the case. Once again I am struck at how little superficial data they feel they need to replicate you. Ick. 

This week I was in The Progressive, looking at a group of Democrats who might actually support, sort of, public education. And at F9orbes.com, a look at one more school choice defeat in Kentucky, and a Pew survey with information about teens and AI. 

I am not really a Sufjan Stevens fan, but I do love this song which just hits me somewhere in here. 

I would be delighted for you to sign up for my newsletter. I can send you what I write, you can read it from your email, and both of us can spend less time on social media.

Google's AI Push For Schools

Google has scored another chance to get its products into schools in the form of a "sizable investment" in AI training. As Greg Troppo reports at The74, training will be offered through ISTE+ASCD (that's the fused Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the International Society for Technology in Education). 

The justification will seem familiar. Per Troppo:

“We have just heard so much feedback from teachers that are just saying, ‘We are not prepared,’” said Richard Culatta, ISTE+ASCD’s CEO. “‘We don’t have the training, we don’t have the background that we need for the realities of teaching in an AI world, both teaching in the classroom and also, secondarily, but equally as important, preparing students for the world that they’re going to be in.’”

Sigh. I do believe that teachers are feeling swamped by the ongoing wave of AI stuff, the students who are using it, and the folks (including all too often administrators) hollering that they have to get on this bandwagon Right Now. I do believe that teachers need plenty of training to help them cope with this toxic tide of anti-human plagiarism machines.

You know what would be lousy source for that training? The company that has bet the farm on being able to rope in a mountain of money to support that toxic tide. The company that has a vested interest in selling its product to every carbon-based life form on the planet. That company. Google.

Not that other education folks haven't made similarly terrible deals (looking at you, American Federation of Teachers). But why keep falling for this same pitch?

Particularly from Google, a company that was just caught referring to its work in education as "a pipeline for future users." Did we not already do this with the tobacco industry's attempts to enlist customers while they were still young enough to be enticed by cartoons? "You get that loyalty early, and potentially for life," said A) Google or B) RJ Reynolds. Is it bad for them? Who cares. Rake in those dollars!

This is Google, the folks who brought schools Chromebooks (described in education circles as "What if a laptop, only broken?"). We've have let advanced computer tech run loose in schools, a solution in search of a problem, like a puppy looking for a good place to pee. 

When the tech has a purpose, it can be great. I spent much of my career on the front lines of using desktop publishing tools to create yearbooks, and it was absolutely awesome. It was also purposeful and useful and sold itself exactly because it had utility, helping us do a job better than we could without it.

But that was not all of ed tech. And the high tech revolution was a nightmare of moving fast and breaking things, bringing us to headlines like the recent Fortune piece by Sasha Rogelberg-- "The U.S. spent $30 billion to ditch textbooks for laptops and tablets: The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents."

Soooo many parents have handed their too-young children high tech tools, soothed at least in part by the fact that such tools were in their child's classroom, and surely the school would only use these tools because they knew the tools were safe and effective. Meanwhile, schools had no damned idea.

So AI is a chance to turbocharge this whole ed tech mess by injecting fantasy, magic, and more desperate profiteering into the equation. 

Do schools and teachers need someone to help them cope with these dangerous bots? Do they need to learn how to help students and families cope with a revolution whose outlines we can barely grasp and whose story is a jumbled mash of fantasy, magical thinking, and utter bullshit? Should they be getting those answers from a company whose primary concern is selling as much of the AI service to as many people as possible for as much as they can collect? Gee, that's a stumper. 

Meanwhile, we have the steady drumbeat of tech-fueled ecstasy and agony. Everyone should sign up for i-Ready! Oh, no-- turns out that i-Ready is terrible! The idea of putting students in front of a teaching machine is a century old, and yet has not produced a win for students yet-- just the occasional money for investors. And AI companies increasingly don't even try to pretend that they are aimed at helping students learn. 

So can organizations that claim to care about education please just take a breath and slow down before selling out. Maybe take a moment to think about how to best serve the interests of students and society before signing up for the latest barely-disguised sales pitch from an AI company whose biggest concern is not education, but how they're going to make back some of the gazillion dollars they've poured into AI. 

Is This The Most Bullshitty AI Product Bullshit So Far?

I apologize for the language, Mom. But some days. 

I'm not sure anybody can pick the absolute worst AI company; it's like trying to pick the worst toxic waste dump. But this one is certainly a candidate. Here's the pitch for Companion's Einstein:

He logs into Canvas every day, watches lectures, reads essays, writes papers, participates in discussions, and submits your homework — automatically.

What the actual hell. The pitch is broken down into areas, so you know that Einstein can log into Canvas, watch videos, covers every subject, works while you sleep-- everything. In the FAQ section, it promises that your professor will never know, and will in fact get better at meeting the course expectations (well, you know, except the expectation that a human student will learn by doing the work). The FAQ even answers the question, "What if I want to do an assignment myself?" You can tell it to skip that assignment, though you can of course set the bot to auto-submit everything. 

But hey-- as the website says:

Stop stressing. Start acing.

Einstein does the busywork so you don't have to.

You know, the busywork, formerly known as "the actual coursework." 

There's no veiled language about efficiency or speed or anything other than the pitch of "Here's a bot that will do all your schoolwork for you--every last bit-- so that you, the student, don't have to do a damned thing." Not even the pretense that handing over the work to a bot might somehow help you learn.

What is even the point? What do the people who work at this company tell themselves? "We are making the world a better place by creating more humans who have good grades and are preternaturally ignorant!" 

The company behind this is Companion Inc, and I can't tell you more than that because feeding a that generic term into a criminally enshittified search engine yields nothing useful. Their claim is a "personal OS" and their "about" page is deeply absurd baloney. It starts with some over the top AI woo-woo:

Today's most powerful AI systems can reason through PhD-level problems, write production code, and generate entire applications from a sentence. They are, by any meaningful measure, brilliant.

Narrators voice: They cannot do those things.

Yet every conversation starts from zero. Bad advice carries no cost, misunderstood values get forgotten by next session, and a decision that derails your month goes unnoticed and unlearned. Nothing compounds—including the responsibility.

The point seems to be that companion won't forget you, like those other goldfish-powered bots (though ChatGPT is among those that is now supposed to remember your other "interactions" to better mine data better meet your needs). But it just gets more and more bizarre--

Oh for crying out loud. I suppose an AI can be "bound to a human," though "bought by a human" seems more accurate. But "loyal"? Nope. Able to figure out a human's long interests and align itself to them? Bullshit. How do I know it's bullshit? Because humans can't figure out their own long term best interests. How else do I know? Because it would not be in the long term best interests of a human to ditch an entire course and dodge an education by having a bot fake it!

But hey-- the company promises that "your companion knows what you're working toward and how you think." This is also bullshit, because no program knows how any human thinks. It does not even "know" what "thinking" is. The pitch here is also that your companion has a "private virtual computer"  so that anything a human with a computer can do, your companion can do. I don't even know what to make of that, other than it may be the most effort yet put into trying to anthropomorphize a computer program. "No, this bot isn't a computer! It's a little tiny person, sitting inside the computer working on its own tiny little computer." I mean, damn-- how do I know that my companion isn't even logging onto its virtual computer, but has hired a companion of its own to do the work. I'm envisioning a series of ever-smaller digital Russian nesting dolls, each sitting at tinier and tinier computer desks.

An extension of you so you can be more of you.

Yes, they say that, too. That seems to raise a larger question of what the more of me is doing if I have outsourced being me to the bot. 

If this seems like a lot of bullshit justification for a company whose main product seems to be a plagiarism machine designed to facilitate cheating, well, you ain't seen nothing, yet. Because there's a "why this matters" section, and it has some striking ideas, some big ideas, some big, deep, bullshitty ideas--

Human morality rarely begins as an abstract love for all of humanity. It begins with someone specific. Your child. Your partner. Your team. Your friend. Through concrete responsibility, care expands to the rest of the world.

This may, in fact, how the sociopaths of Silicon Valley go about developing a moral sense, though let me suggest that if loving other humans doesn't start until you have a partner and a child, you may be a very troubled human being. This goes right up there with the Sam Altman quote circulating today

People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model … But it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes like 20 years of life and all of the food you eat during that time before you get smart.

But Companion isn't just talking about the origins of morality for humans, because "AI should develop the same way." Here's the wrap-up:

A companion shaped by one human life over time develops something closer to genuine responsibility. It learns your boundaries by crossing them and being corrected, your values by watching which suggestions you take and which you ignore, what trust means by earning yours slowly over months.

We believe an AI that cares for one human life is more likely to care for humanity itself.

So while you may think that Companion Inc is just offering an AI bot that can take classes and cheat effectively for you, it is actually a program that will save the entire damned human race by teaching the bots to care about us. Letting Einstein take your class, do your homework, and write your papers will lead it to love you and care for you, and through you, all of humanity. That sounds wonderful, and if we could somehow get the tech overlords who design these bots to care about human beings half as much, the world would be a better place. 

I came across Einstein thanks to a former student who is now a college English professor at one of those places where administration thinks teachers should Get With The Program because AI Is The Future and students are going to use this stuff anyway, so maybe take a few minutes to teach them about Using AI Ethically. Which is bullshit on bullshit. Look at this product, AI-friendly administrator, and tell me how it should be used ethically, because ethical use of Einstein strikes me as absolutely impossible. Unless, I guess, you believe that using Einstein will teach our Robot Overlords to love us and care for us in a deeply moral way. But I have my doubts that even a college administrator could wade through that much bullshit. 

ICYMI: Ice Jam Edition (2/22)

My area made some national news this week when the ice started piling up on the Allegheny River and threatening communities. We can watch the river out our back window, but if it ever rises high enough to touch the house it would be signs of a waterpocalypse. We used to have bad winter floods in the region-- a epic ice jam and flood 100 years ago went on for three months-- but a large dam and some smaller bits of technology have made the area safer. It's one of those things where you don't think about what is keeping you safe because the result is a bunch of Not Happening. 

Plenty to read this week. Here we go.

Defending the Promise: Public Education and the Fight for Democracy

Greg Wyman has been writing a series celebrating traditional public education. This new entry looks at education and its struggles with recent policy decisions.

What Would It Mean if Ohioans Voted to Eliminate Property Taxes?

Jan Resseger looks at one of those bad ideas that just won't die.

Hempfield School District ends partnership with religious rights firm

Really hoping this is a trend. The Independence law Center has been peddling anti-LGBTQ policies to school boards across PA. It is great to see someone firing them.

Sex Education, v. 2026.0

Nancy Flanagan looks at new sex ed revisions in Michigan, and why the feds have decided to go after them.

Ten Commandments could go up in Tennessee public school

More performative anti-religion religious law, this time in Tennessee. Sam Stockard reports for Tennessee Lookout.

Parents are opting kids out of school laptops, returning them to pen and paper

Tyler Kingkade reports on a trend that is, I suspect, maybe not that much of a trend, but still worth reading about.

The Impacts of Immigration Actions on Students and Schools

Steve Nuzum has some info on how the immigrant crackdown is affecting schools in South Carolina.

No Public Funds for Secular or Religious Charter Schools

Shawgi Tell reminds us that some folks really want to start religious charter schools, and it's a really bad idea.

Top teachers’ performance drops in high-poverty schools, showing school context is key

One persistent neo-liberal idea is that we can pluck good teachers out of one school, plug them into another bad school, and magical test improvements would ensue. This was always a dumb idea, but as Matt Barnum reports for Chalkbeat, we now have research to prove that it's a dumb idea.

How One Rural District Used College Students to Keep English Learners in School

Lauraine Langero at EdWeek reports on a school where college students come mentor English Learners-- and it seems to be helping the dropout rate in this Virginia school.

“The Time Had Come to Find My Work”: Diane Ravitch’s Authentic Autobiography

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider reviews Diane Ravitch's memoir. If you need one more opinion to convince you to get a copy, here you go.

Immigration trigger bill would require Tennessee schools to track, report student status

Melissa Brown at Chalkbeat reports on an ugly law being considered in Tennessee. Should schools be forced to help the government target immigrants?

“I Have Been Here Too Long”: Read Letters from the Children Detained at ICE’s Dilley Facility

ProPublica put a whole team of reporters on this story, and it's a tough read. (It's also apparently the reason ICE goons have been confiscating children's letters)

Earn the Seat: What a School Board Is — and Why Mine Failed

Have school board elections in your district lost the plot? Matt Brady looks at the problems in his own district caused by people who don't understand the assignment.

A New National Reading Panel? It Depends

Should we try having a national reading panel again? Maybe, says Nancy Bailey, but only if we avoid some of these major problems.

120 Champions and Defenders of Children: The Lawmakers Who Show Up for Kids

The First Focus Campaign for Children has issued its annual report on which legislators are doing right by young humans. Learn more (and see if your Congressperson made the list).

Vouchers' growth will be their demise

Stephen Dyer explains the quirk in Ohio's legal debates over vouchers. They have to stop looking like they are funding a second, unconstitutional school system.

UT Board Policy Asks Faculty to Avoid ‘Controversial’ Topics in Class

University of Texas joins the list of colleges offering vaguely worded bans on Bad Language. Inside Higher Ed has details on this baloney.

Teacher-centered vs. student-centered instruction: mitigating the socioeconomic achievement gap through differential access and returns

It's an academic paper with some dense language, but it concludes that teacher-centered instruction may be superior to child-centered. Wade through at your own risk.

In defense of stochastic parrots

"Large language models are useful," says Benjamin Riley, "and that's the problem." Lots to unpack here.

The Hidden Cost of Ceding Government Procurement to a Monopoly Gatekeeper

If your school district has made a deal with Amazon, or is planning to, you might want to look at this research that shows just how much Amazon is shafting government bodies and school districts who have made this deal.

Can We Please Stop it with the AI Woo-Woo?

John Warner asks for an end to baloney-pants over-hype on AI.

Two pieces are out at Forbes.com. One deals with Arizona's latest voucher reform battle, and the other with how Kentucky's supreme court shut down yet another charter funding scheme.

Sign up for my newsletter. It's free.

The AI Task Force and Moms For Liberty: It's Complicated

Moms for Liberty has staked out some positions on AI in education, and it may be a preview of the policy challenge facing conservatives in the area. 

Last April, Dear Leader issued an AI in Education edict in which somebody wrote

By fostering AI competency, we will equip our students with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to adapt to and thrive in an increasingly digital society. Early learning and exposure to AI concepts not only demystifies this powerful technology but also sparks curiosity and creativity, preparing students to become active and responsible participants in the workforce of the future and nurturing the next generation of American AI innovators to propel our Nation to new heights of scientific and economic achievement.

The edict established the Artificial Intelligence Education Task Force, five words that, when crammed together by this administration, create some sort of field that overloads and destroys any irony in the vicinity.  The federal AI Initiative offers a page of "resources" that looks much like a "list of folks hoping to make money from AI." That goes with the part calling for public-private partnerships

A bunch of organizations and businesses and also more businesses have signed the presidential Pledge To America's Youth in which [Your Name Here] pledges to provide resources that foster early interest in AI technology, promote AI proficiency, and enable comprehensive AI training for parents and educators" all of which sounds much nicer than "We promise to hook customers as soon as they are born and do whatever we can to saturate the market. Ka-ching."

Specifically, over the next 4 years, we pledge to make available resources for youth, parents and teachers through funding and grants, educational materials and curricula, technology and tools, teacher professional development programs, workforce development resources, and/or technical expertise and mentorship.

Well, of course. Hey, did you hear the unsurprising discovery via internal documents that Google is using its education products to turn schools into a "pipeline of future users"? Is it any wonder that Dear Leader, our Grifter In Chief, wants to keep an eye on this new, promising money tree.

The initiative and task force are headed up by Michael Kratsios, whose previous gigs include Chief of Staff to Peter Thiel. He served in the first Trump administration in the Department of Defense, spent his interregnum as managing director of Scale AI and is now the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In his current gig, he's calling to "demystify these amazing technologies" and figure out what AI is and is not good for, and then American families, students and educators "can fully take advantage of AI applications with confidence and responsibility." Perhaps he's unfamiliar with the research that shows that the more people know about AI, the less inclined they are to use it. 

The task force has been meeting with folks to "discuss AI's impact in the classroom," which of course means everyone except people who actually work in classrooms. At their December confab, they heard from Chris Woolard of the Ohio Department of [Privatizing] Education, Adeel Khan of Magic School, and Tina Descovich, co-founder and current Big Cheese of Moms for Liberty. 

M4L has some thoughts about AI in education. And, well, they aren't entirely terrible. 

Along with tech companies acting responsibly, policymakers must do everything possible to make sure parents have full transparency into how AI systems operate, what data they collect, and how decisions or recommendations are made

By acting below, together we can ensure parents, not algorithms or activists, shape how AI is used in the education of our children.

Of course, they leave teachers out of the equation, perhaps because they can't quite figure out how to work "we think teachers are sometimes okay, but we hate their evil unions" into this equation. But their slogan for AI-- "Demand transparency, accountability, and boundaries" -- is not bad. And they do better by teachers elsewhere-- we'll get to that.

They've got a pledge to sign, and it hits all the usual M4L notes--

It's the usual "parents' fundamental right etc" song and dance, but that song and dance in the face of a plagiarism-driven data-mining monster makes some sense. It also suggests that M4L and its ilk are not quite ready to jump on the White House's grifty AI bandwagon. The M4L pledge certainly strikes a different tone than the White House's AI Pledge to America's Youth. 

M4L also has a model school board policy and a model bill for legislatures. The school board policy lists four purposes:

1. Protect parental rights and student privacy;
2. Preserve the central role of teachers in instruction;
3. Maintain academic integrity; and
4. Ensure transparency and accountability in the use of emerging technologies.

The policy calls for no AI tools used without prior parental consent. The school should annually provide written notice of all AI tools approved for use.

There's a whole section on "instructional safeguards" that states as its first point

Artificial intelligence shall not replace a certified teacher in providing core academic instruction or assigning final grades.

Which doesn't go quite far enough (AI should assign no grades at all), but still is a more blunt defense of actual human teaching than anything the administration has offered. 

M4L also seems to understand the AI threat to all manner of data that can be collected from young humans far better than plenty of other folks (for God's sake, stop inviting ChatGPT to scan all your social media content so it can make you a cute cartoon of yourself). 

The M4L model legislation is much of the same stuff with more expansive lawmakery language, but again, they seem to understand the issues here:

While artificial intelligence may offer instructional benefits, its use also presents risks, including data privacy violations, diminished academic integrity, ideological bias, and inappropriate replacement of human educators.

Well, yeah. 

It's an unusual day when we don't find M4L falling right in behind Dear Leader and nodding along with whatever his crew has to say, and I would love to think that this shows a bit of fissure between pro-any corporate entity that might enrich me MAGA and right-wing conspiracy crew MAGA. It almost smells a bit like that time a whole lot of Very Conservative Folks went rogue over Common Core.

But if the Moms want to join in the resistance to throwing AI into classrooms Right Away because if we don't OMG students won't be ready for the jobs of tomorrow because AI is inevitable and awesome and so much better than all those troublesome human meat widgets-- anyway, if the Moms want to stand up to all of that, I'm happy to see it. I am definitely staying tuned. Can AI make popcorn?