A New Bot-enhanced Assessment Approach

I have spent plenty of time over the years tracking the fortunes of a high-capacity clown car of computer software that promises to grade those student essays. Labeling the variously inadequate programs AI just adds a new level of marketability to this unholy monstrosity, a piece of Schrodinger's software that is simultaneously totally as great as humans and also just about to be perfected within the next two years (going on twenty years).

I just came across a new model that promises speed, efficiency, validity and reliability.  Welcome to No More Marking.  Or maybe don't welcome it.

The company serves all the English-speaking world after spawning in the UK, headed up by Daisy Christdoulou. And her Clever Idea is called "Comparative Judgement."

The idea is deceptively and seductively simple. It's hard, goes the argument, to make absolute judgments. If someone walks into your room, can you judge whether they are tall or not? But comparative judgements are easier for human brains-- if two persons walk into your room, you can tell pretty quickly which one is taller.

So what if, instead of reading a student essay and trying to decide whether it was a 94 or 88 or 91 or whatever, you looked at two essays and decided which one was better. Wouldn't that be quick and simple? And if you had multiple teachers working through the same essays in the same way, wouldn't you have tons of data?

This sounds not bad until the first five seconds you spend thinking about it. Oh, but then...

If I used this technique on student height, I could probably generate a pretty good arrangement of students from tallest to shortest. But I still wouldn't know squat about how tall they actually were. Any kind of non-generalized collection of students (a kindergarten class, a group of pro basketball players) would give me particularly unhelpful results. And if the students are very similar in height, suddenly the judgment isn't so easy, and the results are nearly meaningless.

Part of their solution is a "powerful statistical model" involving some fancy maths that generate raw scores that are turned into other scores. Is the result valid? Well, the site tells us "Human Comparative Judgement is the gold standard of human decision-making. It is supported by an extensive research literature." So, you know, there you go. The other part of the solution appears to be a large sample size.

This is also another one of those tech labor transfer systems, because before any of this can start, someone has to feed all of the essays into the computer program. That can include scanning handwritten copies. You'll have to be sitting at a screen to use this. And of course results don't come back until at least one other human scorer runs through the essays, but while you're waiting, perhaps you can go ahead and be a second reader for someone else's essay stack. Are we saving time yet?

The company insists you are. 30 essays would take you two hours the traditional way with a rubric, but with human comparative judgement, you can cut that to an hour. Why are you so much faster reading every essay without a rubric? I don't know.

Don't worry, because we can save time another way, and you knew this was coming. What if some--or even all-- of the "readers" were AI programs? The company suggests going 90/10-- 90% AI and 10% human. 100/0 is of course an option.

Sigh. Okay, the premise of the whole CJ biz is that it's easier and faster for a human to judge which essay is better than it is to evaluate an essay. But that's human beings. It's not clear if the AI in the loop is doing comparative judgements or just offering the usual crappy robograding assessments; the language hints that it's the former, but it's not really clear. If it's the latter, that's bad news because bots are bad at assessing writing, but trying to figure out which of two essays is "better" seems like a whole other level of judgment that AI is not equipped to perform.

If you want to give students the impression that their teacher actually read the work she assigned to them, then you voice-deliver some comments and the AI will spruce that up and attach it. 

For the American market, the company offers three national writing assessments. You can throw in a multiple-choice grammar test. The company says they are also teamed up with The Writing Revolution, which isn't encouraging.

The company insists that they are valid and reliable and, hey, the program lets you see where the humans and the AIO disagreed. Christodoulou has a substack, but after digging through the company website I was too grumpy to dig any more. Okay, I looked at one post that made the argument that if an AI comes up with results similar to a human, it must be valid. I've heard this a zillion times, and to me it is an indictment of the degree to which human teachers have been herded into mechanical rubric-centered assessment. All you're telling me is that robots are pretty good at imitating humans who have been trained to imitate robots. 

Christodoulou asks some good questions (will knowing they're writing for an AI affect how students write), and she clearly knows that some buzzy items like Bloom's 2 sigma study is bunk. Christodoulou also acknowledges elsewhere that students really care about what their teachers think, and the simple "final product" of a grade is not enough. They've been at this model for a decade or so, so I'm going to assume good intentions. But the site doesn't offer any insights into what standards or training the AI is programmed with, nor the question of how the company deals with the inevitable AI bias and lying about what it has "read." 

CJ is an interesting approach, or at least more interesting than the typical "AI so smart grade your essays quick just like human teacher" pitch. But I remain unconvinced. 

Ten Federal Voucher Myths

Jorge Elozar, head of Democrats for Education Reform (a group started by hedge fund managers to convince Democrats to support education privatization), has been lobbying hard for the federal voucher program, with most of their talking points gathered into a single post here offering ten reasons that the Dems should not repeal the federal vouchers; the list corresponds to the reasons DFER thinks Democratic governors should sign on.

Let's look at the list.

1. It helps public school students.

Note that this is different from the claim that it helps public schools, which is slightly more honest than Elorza's suggestion elsewhere that public schools might benefit from this. 

But as usual, the list of expenditures includes things that public school students should and do provide, like transportation, special education services, and career training. This only makes sense if the public schools somehow manage to off-load some services to federal funding, which would be bad news for local control and for students who need those services. But it would be good news for those policy leaders looking for ways to dismantle public education and sell off the parts.

2. It Can Bring Significant New Resources Into Public Education

Again, the hint public school systems will benefit from these programs. But come on- if the feds really wanted to inject funding into public schools, it would be far easier to just offer tax credits for supporting a public school. A complicated set up with "scholarship granting organizations" is only useful if you are trying to launder public money so that you can legally give it to a religious organization.

"Scholarship organizations can support services that school districts often struggle to provide at scale, creating new educational opportunities without requiring states to raise taxes or cut other programs." Again, if this were an actual goal, the feds could devise much better ways to do it. Instead they are busy closing down the Department of Education and promising to send education back to the states, by which they mean sending back responsibility for funding any programs the feds don't like.

3. It Helps Close the Out-of-School Enrichment Gap

So federal vouchers will get poor kids SAT coaches and violin lessons? Maybe. But I'm waiting to see regulations that actually limit voucher use to non-wealthy students. Otherwise, I expect that these vouchers will follow the common pattern of mostly supporting families that are not wealth-impaired.

4. It Advances Democratic Priorities Like High-Impact Tutoring

Maybe that is a Democratic priority? It shouldn't be. Two-sigma tutoring is a fabrication, a snare and a delusion that has been thoroughly debunked. 

But even if it weren't an exercise in unicorn farming, please note the usual privatizer shift here, turning beneficial tutoring from something the system provides for everyone into a commodity that you are free to shop for on your own. This is right in line with the choice movement-- "Your child's education should be your responsibility, not society's. But here's a little voucher check to take some of the sting off when we wash our hands of you."

5. It Expands Opportunity for Students With Disabilities

Again, why are we touting a system based on the idea that families of these students should have to go find necessary services on their own. If only there were a program, like a federal program-- a sort of  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and if only that program were fully funded. I bet that would be a far better solution than handing parents a check and saying, "Good luck! Buh-bye!"

6. The Fiscal Impact Is Small Relative to the Federal Budget

Compared to the massive trillion dollar holes blown in the budget by this administration, the amount that this will add to the deficit isn't so bad. So...yay?

DFER skips the other financial impact, like the estimate from American Federation for Children, a severely pro-privatization group, estimates that $300 per child will have to be spent marketing the tax shelter part of this program to convince people to contribute. 

7. It Represents an Investment in America’s Future

Does it? DFER argues that we should welcome throwing more money at education. "The ROI from helping a child learn to read, master algebra, recover from pandemic learning loss, or access specialized support far exceeds the program’s cost," Elorza writes, without asking why the importance of these programs might call for an actual federal investment instead of a tax shelter that is designed to help public tax dollars flow to private schools. Did you forget that was the purpose of the federal voucher program? Elorza is glad you did.

8. It Is Popular With Voters

You know a good way to find out what voters want? Let them vote on it. Except they're not going to do that because school vouchers have never once been voted into place by voters. Voters, given the choice, have rejected vouchers every time. Which is why they are rarely given the choice. Every voucher program in this country was birthed by legislative shenanigans.

You want to show me how popular your program is? Don't show me the results of carefully crafted polling questions. Let people vote.

9. Democrats Need a New Direction on K-12 Education

This one is just whacky. "Ten years ago," says Elorza, " Democrats were the undisputed party of education." I will not dispute for a second that the Democrats lost their claim to be an education party, though I would say that it happened a lot sooner than ten years ago. Ten years ago would be when the GOP started pushing the exact same policy that DFER is arguing for today. 

How did they lose their education mojo? By listening to people like DFER and pushing policies like test and punish, privatization, and generally offering right wing policies with a blue towel draped over their shoulder. But DFER was founded explicitly to perform the "inside job" of getting Dems to fall in line with the privatization movement, and they have been consistent ever since, repeatedly trying out versions of "If you were a true and smart Democrat you would totally want to back school choice." And also "Public schools suck because of the evil teachers union." 

Do the Democrats need a new direction in education? They surely do, but following the privatization policies of Betsy DeVos is neither new nor win Dems education plaudits.

10. Democrats Should Be the Party of Opportunity

To be clear, Elorza is arguing that the federal vouchers expand educational opportunity. The questions he skips are: what kind of opportunity, for whom, and at what cost? Watch this bit of misdirection:

Families are asking for more options, more support, more tutoring, more enrichment, and more help for their children. The FSTC provides all of those things.

This skips over the most important question, which is what would be the best way for the feds to provide those things? Because this isn't it, and to pretend that this program, carefully designed as a tax shelter than funds private schools, is somehow a big boon for public schools and public school families is baloney. 

The DFER argument is like saying, "Yes, an AK-47 assault rifle will let you mow down a bunch of fleshy, vulnerable human beings, but let's not be hasty. You could do useful things with it, too, like cut down shrubbery or open a door you accidentally locked. Really, I don't understand why you don't fully embrace the AK-47 bush trimmer."

Elorza also throws in a bonus myth-- governors should opt in "to keep resources in the state." In that construction, "keep" is doing some heavy lifting, since we are talking about redirecting funds that were already bound for the bottomless money pit that is DC. 

DFER is presenting a backwards-engineered argument. They start with the policy they want to pursue; now they've searched for an argument, landing on "This will solve Problem X" rather than start with Problem X and asking what a good solution for that would be. DFER wants to dismantle and privatize education, and federal vouchers are set up to further that cause of converting a shared societal responsibility into an individual shopping problem.

None of this, unfortunately, means that more states won't sign up for some free federal money. The bare minimum we can hope for is some actual guardrails and restrictions on how the money would be used. Maybe even an actual out loud conversation about the steady erosion of the country's promise of public education. But I don't expect any of that from DFER.  

Honoring Juneteenth

Juneteenth has been around a long time, with some historians placing the first observances back in 1866. But it has only been a federal holiday since 2021 when Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed, a law making the observance a national holiday.

The holiday is, of course, highly annoying to MAGA and other cultural conservatives who are certain that white men should be the center of everything. But Dear Leader has done his best to clamp down in his general assault on DEI. Consequently many businesses and the armed forces have pulled away from honoring the holiday. If schools were still in session, rest assured that the feds would be making sure that schools did not mark such a holiday that does. not properly center white guys.

My small town is marking Juneteenth with a festival in the park including food and dancing and music. It's a modest fun time and an appropriate way to honor the occasion.

I think painting it a Black or DEI holiday misses some of the point. It's an American holiday first and foremost because Black Americans are, in fact, Americans, and it is appropriate to mark the point at which they received a more complete version of citizenship to which they were always entitled. But it's also an American holiday because it marks a point at which the country tried to change directions and become a better version of what we had always promised to be. 

It's a complicated holiday. In the main, it is joyous in celebrating the freedom from slavery for an entire people. But it also marks the point at which the country stopped tolerating an odious and inexcusable evil. We should be able to celebrate the first part, but for many folks, it's hard to acknowledge what made the freeing of enslaved people necessary.

It's the root of all those laws against teaching divisive concepts or teaching anything that might make some (white) kids feel bad. The preferred culture panic narrative is "Yes, there was slavery but then se stopped, and yes, some bad individuals did some racism, but we stopped that, too." And since we stopped doing the bad things, it would be impolite and divisive to bring up the Bad Things part. That unwillingness to talk about what some of us did to others of us--what was done, who did it, and how they made themselves okay with it-- has given us a long history of wrestling inconclusively with racism problems. Banning the mention of such topics from school (and national parks and anywhere else) is not helping. 

Like many holidays, Juneteenth has the artificial quality of suggesting that an important thing happened all at once on one day. But there is nothing wrong with taking one particular day to honor an important event, even if that event was actually a long process. As a nation, we did some awful stuff, and then after we stopped, some folks had a very hard time getting past the ideas and attitudes that were used to justify the awful stuff in the first place.

Juneteenth reminds some of us that some uncomfortable conversations need to be had, but maybe not today, while some Americans are celebrating their emancipation. I do wish school was in session right now, but we may honor the day as best we can.

Hanushek Plays The Hits (Chicken Littling The NAEP)

The NAEP scores have inspired a great deal of handwringing and navel gazing and at least one more addition to the edu-panic vocabulary (make way for a "learning recession"). And it provides another round of attention to economists who specialize in education blarney.

So the Washington Post's consideration of NAEP math scores, comes the headline "Math scores remain lower than a decade ago. It's a bad sign for the economy."

The second part of that headline signals the return of Eric Hanushek, the economist who has followed fellow economist Raj Chetty to the assertion that getting the right elementary school teacher will lead the student to make oh so much more money as an adult. A decade ago, this was a popular argument for those who wanted us to use Value-Added Measures to find all the Bad Teachers so schools could fire their way to excellence. That was a dumb idea.

One might ask how, exactly, any scientist could come up with evidence that the right teacher would lead to adult riches. Was it some sort of empirical anecdotal evidence, like multiple class reunions where everyone noticed that all of Mrs. Swellteach's former students were rich and all of Mrs. Dullbutt's students were poor? It was not, though one would think that if Chetty and Hanushek were correct, such anecdotes would be easy to come by.

This may sound like a silly notion, but Hanushek has been pushing it for at least fifteen years. Here's a paper from 2011 where he lays out a very specific connection between a teacher's percentile and the exact number of lifetime dollars that a student will gather. Seriously. See for yourself:

Take a good but not great teacher, one at the 69th percentile of all teachers rather than at the 50th percentile (that is, a teacher who is half a standard deviation above the average). She produces an increase of $10,600 on each student’s lifetime earnings. Even a modestly better than average teacher (60th percentile) raises individual earnings by $5,300, compared to what would otherwise be expected. While those numbers are not trivial, they burgeon dramatically once we recognize that every student in the class can expect such increases in earnings. Consider, for example, a teacher with a class of 20 students. Under such circumstances, the teacher at the 60th percentile will—each year—raise students’ aggregate earnings by a total of $106,000. The impact of one at the 69th percentile (as compared to the average) is $212,000, and one at the 84th percentile will shift earnings up by more than $400,000. But there is also symmetry to these calculations. A very low performing teacher (at the 16th percentile of effectiveness) will have a negative impact of $400,000 compared to an average teacher.

This was music to the ears of the nominally-Democrat crowd of reformsters, the folks in the Obama/Duncan axis who insisted that if everyone in the country got an advanced degree, nobody would be poor. ("Masters degree??!" exclaims the Walmart manager. "Then we'll start paying you $35 an hour!"). 

Hanushek's whole shtick is to slice test scores into pieces of standard deviation. It's Hanushek and friends who came up with the "days of learning" which is just a slice of standard deviation on a test score. 

So how did he come up with this connection between good teachers and lifetime earnings? I'm going to over-simplify here, because we're talking about economist stuff here, but it goes pretty much like this: We know that a better teacher is better because their students get higher test scores, and we know that students with higher test scores go onto have generally wealthier life outcomes.

Hmmm. Well, first we've got to ignore the fairly small teacher effect on student success in school. And maybe high test scores cause higher earnings, or maybe it's that (as we already know) students from wealthier backgrounds do better on standardized tests, and that students from wealthier backgrounds tend to grow up to be wealthy adults? At this point, we can also call out the data that aren't there. We've had plenty of time to follow the students of high and low VAM teachers to compare how they're all doing and see if there's a pattern then. And somebody could have pursued the biggest question of all-- is there a shred of evidence that raising a student's test score raises their life outcomes? 

You would think all of that is more than enough to retire this baloney. But Hanushek has adapted to the new educational preoccupations. In February of 2020 (aka The Last of the Before Times) there he was, insisting that NAEP scores showed we'd have to get better teachers in classrooms soon, issuing a full-on policy analysis from the Hoover Education Success Initiative-- "The Unavoidable: Tomorrow's Teacher Compensation." The Initiative is a gathering of the usual suspects-- the executive committee is Hanushek, Chester Finn (Fordham Institute boss-emeritus), Paul Peterson, and Margaret Raymond (CREDO chief and Hanushek's wife). Only by using test scores to select and recruit the best teachers can we usher in an era of prosperity.

Now, six years later, for some reason Lauren Lumpkin gave Hanushek a call so that he could explain that today's graduates will earn an average of 8% less through their lifetimes. Because they have fewer skills, a thing he knows because of the NAEP math scores ("Oh, you're one of those," groans the Walmart manager. "We'll start you at 8% less than these older guys.")

And that's not all--

He estimated the combined effect of those losses will cost the U.S. $90 trillion through the year 2100.

He explains

“People don’t get very concerned about this, in part because it’s sort of like blood pressure. It’s the silent killer you don’t notice until you notice it,” Hanushek said of the way math achievement will affect the economy. “What it comes out to is a huge number that we have to pay attention to because it affects our position in the world, frankly.”

 And I shouldn't just pick on Hanushek, because other economists are out there chicken littling about this, too. 

Thomas Kane and a crew at the National Bureau of Economic Research are predicting a lifetime earning loss of $900 billion for all the students enrolled in the 2020-21 school year. Kane is the Harvard GSE guy who stumped hard for Common Core and testing and once published a terrible analogy about how you can't diet without a bathroom scale and a mirror (really). 

These guys all have big ole credentials and big-time jobs, so maybe I'm just not smart enough to follow their lines of reasoning. But it sure looks like a big old pile of baloney to me. And yet somehow it just keeps coming back, floating on zombie air. 

Will Public Schools Benefit From Federal Vouchers?

Discussion has heated up about the federal voucher program and, specifically, whether blue states should opt in, and whether such opt-inning is inevitable. Colorado's Jarid Polis and New York's Kathy Hochul appear to be primed to take Trump Education Dollars. Folks are looking at Pennsylvania's voucher-curious governor Josh Shapiro (I suggested he not, but that may not be enough to keep it from happening). 

The temptation centers around two issues. 

First, people from the state are probably going to take the tax credit that goes with contributing to the voucher program. Shouldn't governors, the argument goes, make sure that money from their own state doesn't end up going to some other state. It's an odd argument, because without the tax credit, those dollars would have gone to DC and on to Lord Knows Where anyway, so it's not like non-participating states are losing anything                    

Second is the assertion that some of this voucher money can be used to fund public schools and not just private ones. Consider, for instance, this slide show from a presentation by Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. Roza spent fifteen years at University of Washington's Center for Privatizing Reimagining Public Education (taking one year off to work with the Gates Foundation) and took the Edunomics director's job in 2012. Edunomics folks have thrown their weight behind some bad reformy ideas like the Super Sardinemaster teaching model (fire all the bad teachers and jam all the students into class with the good ones). 

In her slide show, Roza gets one thing exactly right-- the Treasury Department hasn't yet issued the exact rules for the federal vouchers (Education Freedom Tax Credits), so there's a whole lot we don't yet know. 

What seems clear is that the mechanics of the federal vouchers (like all other vouchers) make it hard for public schools to get a piece of the funding stream. The donors hand money to the Scholarship Granting Organization, and the SGO hands the money to a famnily-- not the school. 

So the missing link is the means of having the families hand their money to a public school.

They aren't going to hand it over in the form of tuition, because it's a free public school. Roza suggests there are three "scenarios" under which the public school could get its hands on some of that money.

Scenario 1: Homeschool or private school students who purchase add-ons from the district. I'm not clear what that might involve; at least in Pennsylvania, most of those students are entitled to get extras from their district for free, including everything from advanced classes to extracurriculars like band and theater and sports. In this state, I'm pretty sure the public school couldn't charge an other-schooled student for anything that district students get for free.

Scenario 2: Disrtict students who sign up for "extras" like tutoring, summer programs, etc. Students could even choose "priced electives/clubs, e.g.financial literacy, robotics, possibly APs and VocEd, etc." I don't even know where to start with this. If some of these "extras" are being provided by third parties, klike a tutoring service, then the district doesn't get a penny. But if we are talking about a district that offers some parts of its academic program only for those who will pay for it, that's a crazypants model, a model that takes the "public" right out of public education. 

Especially given some of her examples: "Below grade-level students can opt in to extended yearservices, small group supports, homework help, etc." Are you behind in school? Maybe in danger of not graduating on time? Well, for just a few dollars more, you can get the rest of the education that we promised you!

But that's really just the warm-up for 

Scenario 3: Every district studentparticipates in a bundled set of“enhanced” services.

This is absolute dystopian bullshit, a literal use of the "subscription to unlock what ought to be regular features" model from the world of software. This image is taken straight from the slide:

""Go get us some of that free federal money," declares Imaginary School District, "or your kid will only have access to Public Education Basic, with none of the benefits of our Plus or Premium plans." Look at Roza's hypothetical list. AP classes? Full day K? Orientations!! Mental health!!! What the hell school district charges for that stuff? Surely she also meant to include lunches on her list. 

This is like airline pricing ("You can buy a ticket to fly on our plane, but if you would like to bring luggage or sit down or breathe our air, that will be extra!")

In her presentation, Roza suggested that this is all just a neat way to replace fund raisers. She also suggests that districts could require families to fill out a scholarship form as part of registration. She also recommends you do some arm-twisting of friends and relatives to make their contribution to the SGO that serves your kids. Which would seem to suggest a funding system that re-enforces the already-existing gap between wealthy and non-wealthy districts. Do you have lots of folks who can donate to your district's SGO? No? Well, it's Public Education Basic for you.

This sure seems like a recipe for creating a multi-tier school system, where options that ought to be part of the program become upsells. It's a proposal to lower the floor for what constitutes a minimal free public education down into the basement, with steps out of that basement on a strictly pay-to-play basis. But there's another downside.

This is also a recipe for putting local schools at the mercy of federal operators, because now a major revenue stream will flow through DC. That means federal leverage over local policy ("Get rid of those Naughty Books or you are cut off from federal voucher funds"). There is a certain genius in the federal vouchers in that should MAGA be swept out of office, the revenue flowing through this program will create pressure from even blue states to keep this right wing policy in place. 

The federal voucher program does not support school choice; it's a private school subsidy wrapped in a tax shelter. It's not meant to help public schools, and it won't, unless they are willing to bend themselves into a twisted fun-house mirror version of what a public school system is meant to be. 

Historian Adam Laats points out that this kind of public subsidy for private schools has a history of failure, And a zillion people have pointed out that this voucher, like all voucher's, is about the school's choice, not school choice (because your right to choose is not nearly as sacred as school operators' right to discriminate against any children for any reason). 

And maybe that's part of the point of these various attempts to sell the idea that this will be a subsidy for public schools as well as private schools. Except, of course, if the federal government really wanted to subsidize public schools, they could just do it or, at the very least, stop trying to slash the meager amount of funding that they do provide, instead of sending the money to public schools via this long, twisty path. Honestly, this whole "federal vouchers will benefit public schools" argument is the kind of convoluted baloney that only a thinky tank wizard or a government bureaucrat could love. Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean it won't work. 

Can Schools Play Catch-Up?

From its launch as Campbell Brown's attempt to be a major education player in anti-public ed politics, The74 has become a very mixed bag. Sometimes they publish valuable journalism about education, and sometimes they roll out junk like this article about using AI to help schools get students caught up, an article mostly impressive in how it manages to get so much wrong in such a little space.

Everyone just run faster than that guy-- go catch up

The piece is by Daniel Weisberg. Weisberg has deep reformster credentials; the former lawyer was First Deputy Chancellor of schools in NYC under Joel Klein and David Banks and is a Broad Foundation fellow. He was CEO of TNTP, the sister organization for Teach for America, where he attacked teacher job protections and oversaw blog-posts-disguised-as-reports like The Widget Effect and The Opportunity Myth that lacked substance and accuracy, but which provided cover for reformsters to act like their ideas were grounded in something other their personal preferences. He's no stranger to controversy, having been implicated in a scandal under Banks/Adams. 

Weisberg has never shown a particularly strong grasp of teaching or education, and this article doesn't break his streak. 

"America's schools are terrible at catching kids up" Weisberg says, a sentence he puts in its very own paragraph to help make it pop.

This is just so dumb. The whole discourse around "catching kids up" is just dumb.

What's the hope here? Let's take a student who is behind by, say, three months of material. So to catch that student up, the teacher needs to get that student through three months' worth of material in one month. 

If the teacher could do that, wouldn't she be doing it already?

Do catch-up fans imagine teachers are sitting there thinking, "Well, I could teach this material a lot faster, but I think I'll just poke along instead." Do catch-up fans imagine that teachers aren't already moving as quickly as they can? 

Guys like Weisberg believe in "intervention programs designed to catch kids up," but if educators knew a swifter, more efficient way to teach that material, why would it be an "intervention program" and not a "regular program"?

But Weisberg never has shown much understanding of actual classroom teaching. He argues that schools are bad at catch-up because teachers are being asked to do the impossible-- but he has the wrong idea about what the impossible is.

In a classroom of 25 to 30 students, teachers must determine who is on grade level, who is behind (and why), how to modify instruction for each struggling child and how to extend learning for advanced students — all while delivering grade-level content.

Diagnostic exams, designed to give educators information on how students are progressing, are infrequent and often test different subject matter than what is used in the classroom. Intervention programs designed to catch kids up are purchased but poorly implemented. Students needing intensive help are sometimes segregated into programs with low expectations and weak outcomes.

Sigh. Not exactly untrue, but all beside the point. Weisberg assumes that a great intervention program and intensive help could somehow cause struggling learners to learn material faster than any other students in the system. He talks about a "roadmap to acceleration," but if we had such a roadmap, why wouldn't we have all students on it (and is it possible we already do). He also connects these problems, somehow, to grade inflation. 

Weisberg thinks he know how to do achieve the great catch up miracle. Let's see. First, this:

TNTP’s study identified 1,400 schools where students consistently learned more than a year’s worth of material annually, enabling those who started behind to reach grade level.

No, they did not. They identified some schools where students scored well on the standardized test of math and reading. When someone starts talking about "1.3 years of learning" they are talking about a certain amount of a standard deviation on a test score. Can intensive test prep bring test scores up? Probably. Do we have a shred of evidence that raising that test score will improve the student's life outcomes? We do not.

Weisberg continues with his bold vision:

In other words, the Catch-up Crisis is reversible. But first. we need a bold, shared goal: that students who fall behind grade level will catch up to — or exceed — grade-level standards within two school years, and without fail by high school graduation.

This is lake Woebegone talk-- we can get all students to be above average. You know what happens when all students are at or above grade level? We start talking about "grade level inflation" and how the standards are too low. 

But Weisberg sees three obstacles to implementing his bold vision: "limited real-time insight into student learning, little evidence-based guidance on how to address specific learning gaps and minimal job-embedded coaching."

Part of Weisberg's issue is a definite lack of faith in professional educators. "Students generate enormous amounts of work daily — assignments, quizzes, writing, projects," he says, as if human children are some sort of assembly line machine and the work they do descends from nowhere. "No human can analyze all of it for 25 students every day." He should meet secondary teachers who do it for 150-200 students. Is it hard? Sure. Do you find ways to manage it without doing it every single day? Maybe. 

But you know what he thinks the solution is-- magical AI that "can surface patterns quickly and provide teachers with usable, digestible insights." Which can also "generate evidence-informed strategies for specific challenges." Here's his example:

Imagine a fifth grader who is struggling with fractions. His teacher knows he earned a C- on the last test but doesn’t know why or what to do to help. AI can analyze the student’s work in real time and discovers he tends to invert numerators and denominators; it draws on data from thousands of similar children to see what worked best to help those with the same misconceptions and recommends content for a 15-minute tutoring block for the teacher to review and revise.

I'm stuck trying to imagine a fifth grade teacher who can't spot a student who tends to invert numerator and denominator (while doing what, exactly?) Where is this data from thousands of similar children? And how would AI know what worked best? And on what planet do you find a fifth grader who can be retaught successfully in a fifteen-minute block of time? 

Weisberg's working with a manufacturing model here. The assembly line is turning out a flawed product, so we examine all the data from the equipment and figure out how to correct the problem. But there are so many steps in this process that raise huge questions. How did the AI collect data from thousands of students-- did they agree to have every step of their classroom work monitored and recorded, and why is this data available all across the country? Also, given that AI does not actually think or understand in any human sense of the word, how was the instruction modified and shaped so that the AI could spot patterns in a useful way? 

Also, I love that AI-in-education folks always turn to math for examples (even though chatbots are notoriously bad at math). What if the student is having trouble analyzing figurative language in Shakespearean sonnets? What if the student is behind because they were supposed to read The Great Gatsby and they just, you know, didn't? 

Weisberg also wants to deploy AI to coach teachers. "AI-supported coaching tools, used responsibly, could provide timely, standards-aligned feedback on recorded lessons, supplementing human coaching rather than replacing it." Never mind "Teach like a pirate"-- now you can teach like a robot. This dovetails nicely with the suggestions for students, all of which add to the offloading of professional cognitive work for teachers. I wonder how long it would take the AI to deskill the actual human teacher.

Weisberg name-checks some companies doing some pilot work and claims some of these are seeing significant progress, but he only links to corporate sites-- not any "evidence-informed" support.

Weisberg nods to the ideas that teachers should still make final choices and also maybe the district better figure out how badly this adds to their too-much-screen-time problems. So he gets a half a point for that.

But mostly this is one more case of over-promising that AI can do something it can't actually do and maybe we shouldn't be trying to get it to do in the first place and, most of all, that can't really be done. He makes the mistake of imagining that teaching is engineering (read Russell Barkley on being a shepherd rather than an engineer), a view that is doubly problematic as it treats students like pieces of sheet metal waiting to be fashioned into a shape of management's choosing. Students get no agency or choice in his vision.

And all of that in service of the notion that if a runner is lagging in a race, they just need to be properly directed to run faster (faster even than those in the front of the pack) so that they can catch up. No, thank you. 

Growth or Proficiency

Some of us are apparently still having this debate.

Jill Barshay wrote a piece for Hechinger Report about the DC school district, which is apparently awesome at growth but not so great at actual achievement levels. The piece does a good job of revisiting the debates about these two sorts of measures; I'd just like to add a point or three.

First, let me point out for the gazillionth time that we are not talking about student achievement and we are certainly not (as Barshay unfortunately does) talking about years of learning.  A "year of learning" or "month of learning" or "fortnight of learning" or an "afternoon of learning" is just a journalist-friendly way of packaging test results. 

We are talking about scores on a Big Standardized Test. That's it.

Barshay notes that "A school system can improve rapidly and still leave most children behind." Well, yes. Which students have more room for improvement-- those who are already at the top of their game, or those who are scoring in the basement?

Students who are bringing up the rear academically can be given more test prep, instruction that goes straight to what the test covers as well as instruction on how to take the test itself (Here's how to avoid being tricked by distractors in multiple choice questions). Students at the top of the game may well be growing and developing, but the BS Test measures such a sliver of skills (and no knowledge at all) that their growth doesn't register (You've been developing insights into quantum theory? That's will not raise your test score). 

This was always part of the debate over tying teacher evaluation to student scores. Focus on growth, and teachers of honors classes are in trouble, because a student who's already at the 98th percentile isn't going to grow at all. Focus on proficiency scores, and the teachers who are assigned the low-achieving students are in trouble, because no matter how well they teach those students, they will still lag (no, Virginia, there is no magical technique for "catching up" students quickly-- if there was, teachers would use it all the time). 

Worse, when policy bases teacher or school evaluation on proficiency, it turns the lowest achievers into hot potatoes. We've seen this in action where charter and voucher schools work hard to avoid those low-scoring students who would mess up their numbers. When Steven Wilson is cited in the article pointing to charter schools with low-income students and high levels of proficiency, he's simply pointing to the effects of creaming, where schools do their best to avoid having their numbers damaged by low-scoring students. There is no magic trick there that can be applied "at scale" for the public system. 

Ultimately, schools can not win playing the growth measurement game because schools cannot raise student scores every year forever, as if somehow each cohort of students was smarter than their older siblings. Test scores are not a stock market ticker.

But schools also cannot win the proficiency game. BS Test scores and "grade levels" are scaled and normed (curved). If the BS Test were truly standards based, students taking the test could be scored instantly after they clicked the last answer. But the scores have to be computed and compared and scaled and then some state bureau sets the cut scores. But curves have to have a bottom. If, after years of intensive effort, every child tested above grade level for reading, we would not conclude that a reading education moonshot had occurred-- we would conclude that "grade level" had been set too low. If every child was rated "proficient," we would conclude that the requirements for "proficient" had been made too easy (just check every piece complaining about grade inflation). 

Does test score growth tell us something? Absolutely. Does it tell us everything, or even most of the things? Absolutely not.

Do test score levels tell us something? Absolutely. Do they tell us everything, or even most of the things? Absolutely not.

The growth vs. proficiency debate is in many ways a debate about how to make the best use of a tiny, noisy slice of data. Instead, I wish we were talking about what we really should be measuring, how we can measure it, and how we are going to deal with the fact that there is much about educational quality that cannot be measured in any way that will satisfy our data overlords. Some days we are wasting way too much energy arguing about whether we should cut baloney into slices or cubes when we'd be better off figuring out how make a healthier meal.

18 Rules For Life (2026 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. 

In a break with tradition, I have fewer numbers this year (this is not the book I'm working on, but if you're a publisher who sees a book here, feel free 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, today 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.

And it's not just the "better" but also the "do." It's not enough to sit on the couch and think better thoughts. Our recent past reminds us that making the world better means actually doing something, putting something out into the world, standing up for what matters, making an effort to support what you value. 

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 shouldn't speak, post, write or publish words that you know to be untrue. Untruths are not an acceptable means to an end; we rarely achieve our ends, and so it is our means that end up defining us. 

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. Misunderstanding people on purpose makes the world a worse place.

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.

Maybe you believe that all human beings are not created equal, that some deserve more power and privilege than others. You are still fooling yourself to believe that the good parts of your life are there because you deserve to have them given to you. Understand that your privileges are privileges, and not some payment of what God owes you. 

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. Some people believe that 90% is the "really matters" part (which is exhausting). 

To know your 5% requires you to know yourself. Strip the definition of yourself of references to situation and circumstance; don't make your 5% 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 95%. 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. 

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."

Worse, we now have folks who believe that not only should they have and express an opinion about how others live, but they should be able to put their opinion into law. Nobody has ever made the world (or anyone's life) better by imposing their own moral code on others. 

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 curate your narrative; do the work. Who lives, who dies, who tells your story--that will have to take care of itself.

12. Assume good intent, complexity, and the possibility of growth.

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.

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. This is one reason that relationships based on commitment are more stable and positive than transactional ones. 

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

Some people aren't 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. Every "If I do X, then I will achieve Y" needs to be examined, because generally it's better to just aim straight at Y. We are living through a dynamic demonstration when someone believes that being rich, famous and powerful will somehow fix gnawing spiritual emptiness and fear of death.

And this doesn't apply to just the big stuff. Many an organization has foundered because its leaders lost sight of the actual point of the organization. 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. With each passing year, I look at my life and think, "Well, this is not what I envisioned at all, but it is mighty fine."

16. Make something.

Music, art, refurbished furniture, machinery. Something.

17. 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.

18. 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).

Yes, AFC, Federal Vouchers Are Vouchers

The DeVosian American Federation for Children wishes you would stop using the "v" word.

AFC now has a "scholarship fund." their version of scholarship granting organization, an important step in both promoting the new federal vouchers and cashing in on them. 

But AFC CEO Tommy Schultz would really like people to think there's a difference between the federal tax credit program and school vouchers. Schultz is full of it on this point, but since he's posted his argument on a web page, we have a fine opportunity to understand his argument (and why it is baloney). 

The crux of his argument is this: a voucher is a "government-funded program" in which the state takes revenues collected from taxpayers and gives it to parents to spend on some education-flavored expense. But the Education Freedom Tax Credit-- well, I want to give this to you in Schultz's own words.

The EFTC works differently at every step. Instead of the government spending public money, the EFTC encourages private individuals to donate to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). In return, the donor receives a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 on their federal tax return.

The SGO—a nonprofit—then uses those private donations to award scholarships to eligible families. Those families can use the scholarships for tuition, tutoring, special needs services, curriculum materials, transportation, technology, and other K–12 educational expenses.

The money never passes through a government agency. It goes from a private donor to a nonprofit to a family.

Yes, this is exactly why the whole dodge was created in the first place. If you've ever wondered why anyone would create such a convoluted method of funding, the answer is that it was designed to work around pesky laws that forbid giving public tax dollars to private (religious) entities. The government didn't actually touch it, so voila!-- it isn't taxpayer-funded government money!

It is not hard to understand why this is bullshit. Let me offer two examples.

Example 1 (Civilian): Your brother owes you $100. Your spouse tells you to go collect that money, and under no circumstances are you to buy beer with it. You go to your brother's house and tell him, "Look, just give me $50 and two cases of beer and we'll call it even." You go home with your $50 and your beer. "You spent $50 on beer!!" says your spouse, angrily. "I did not," you reply righteously. "The $50 never touched my hands, therefor I did not spend it on beer." What are the odds this explanation will satisfy your spouse?

Example 2 (Lawyerly): The Kentucky Supreme Court threw out that state's attempt at a tax credit voucher, noting exactly where the tax credit argument fails.  “The money at issue cannot be characterized as simply private funds,” they wrote, “rather it represents the tax liability that the taxpayer would otherwise owe.” Kentucky's constitution, like many others, specifically forbids the spending of taxpayer funds on private (religious) schools. So the court found“ the funds at issue are sums legally owed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and subject to collection for public use including allocation to the Department of Education for primary and secondary education” and reallocating them to private school tuition is unconstitutional.

Also, since EFTC dollars are tax credits, that means the taxpayer will give the money to the SGO and might then collect it as a tax return from the government, so technically, the government will lay its hands on these funds.

But Schultz really, really wants you to see things differently. He even has a FAQ space for the issue, starting with "Is the Education Freedom Tax Credit a voucher?" No, because vouchers use public tax dollars and the EFTC "incentivizes private donations." Which serves his purposes better than saying the EFTC allows you to give your federal tax liability to a private school via the SGO pass through. 

Does the EFTC take money from public schools? This is one thing the federal voucher has over state vouchers-- the cost in lost revenue can just be added to the federal deficit. Yay? Of course, transferring students out of public schools will still cost those schools money and resources.

Can EFTs be used only for private school tuition? Of course not-- like ESA style vouchers they will be useful for any education-flavored you might come up with. Or, as demonstrated by Arizona, they might be used for all sorts of stuff that isn't actually education-flavored at all. 

What is a scholarship-granting organization? AFC mentions the part where an SGO launders the money and hands it off to families. They skip over the part where the SGO gets to keep as much as 10%, allowing SGO outfits like American Federation for Children Scholarship Fund stand to make a nice chunk of change.     

The web page gives a pretty clear and direct presentation of the view that EFTC supporters are trying to pitch. The one notable surprise is the degree to which they kind of throw state voucher programs under the bus by turning them into Brand X for comparison purposes.

AFC is swimming upstream here. Everyone understands that the federal vouchers are, in fact, vouchers. Some supporters try hard to use "scholarships" (which is a term that tested much better with audiences) or lean on the tax shelter credit aspect, but most everyone who writes and talks about these calls them vouchers, because that's what they are. 

They repurpose government funding for the use of private (religious) institutions. That's a voucher. Trying to wave a bunch of smoke and mirrors and incantations around the actual mechanics or the repurposing doesn't change a thing. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and a voucher by any name still smells bad.

Ryan Walters Divorce

Divorce sucks. I'm a once-divorced guy on marriage #2, and like virtually everyone in this country, I know sizable number of divorced persons, and not one of them says, "Yeah, that was fabulous and I wish 
everyone could go through it."

Ryan Walters is going to go through it. Not only is he going to go through it, but he's the one who filed.

If you've forgotten about Walters, I could link to a dozen posts about him here, or I could let Robyn Pennachia at Wonkette sum up some career highlights. 

Former Oklahoma Schools Superintendent Ryan Walters is one of the holiest men in all the land. He worked tirelessly for many years to use the power of the state to convert children to Christianity, without care or regard to how “unconstitutional” that was. A Bible in every classroom! Every wall straight up papered with the Ten Commandments! State funding for Catholic charter schools! Forcing kids to watch videos of him praying to Donald Trump! Sure, many of his initiatives failed, but he did ultimately succeed in one thing: spending over $100,000 in taxpayer funds to pay PR firms to promote his “personal brand” and secure over 400 media appearances for him.

He has since finished with that job (though it has not finished with him-- he's just been sued by one of the teachers whose career he tried to destroy for insufficient MAGA devotion). Now he heads a right wing anti-teacher-union group. 

The divorce petition he filed against his wife cites "a state of complete and irreconcilable incompatibility" as the reason for the divorce, claiming that this "destroyed the aims of the marriage of the parties and rendered its continuation impossible." Otherwise known as a no-fault divorce.

I am not here to jeer or mock Walters over this. As I said, divorce sucks, and while it is sometimes inevitable, it's also wrenching and painful and confusing and difficult and all the complicated things a human-to-human unraveling can be. And there are four children involved which really sucks for everyone.

Walters has absolutely been a rabid christianist culture warrior, part of the same crew that considers no-fault divorce a scourge and insists that if we just put the decalogue up in classrooms and make everyone read the Bible and just follow God's law to the black and white letter, our lives will unfold in pristine straight lines. Just live your life in the light, avoid the dark, and don't let anyone tell you that life is sometimes complicated and grey. Folks like this get kicked in the gut but wiggly grey reality all the time; Walters just happens to be one of the ones who gets kicked in public. 

Thing is, Walters has kicked a lot of other people in public who did not ask for it, even as he has used his position to deliver a lot of noise about how other people should live their lives. He has publicly gone hard after some teachers, going as far as trying to have them drummed out of the profession, for not Living Right. So media and social media are making hay out of this newest chapter.

Charges of hypocrisy are not useful. But when someone is this absolute and noisy and combative about his black-and-white beliefs, one must wonder whether they are an actual true believer or if they are just cosplaying for the grift. It's times like this that give us a clue. 

I'll hope that people show Walters some grace. I'll hope that going through a messy, complicated patch will move Walters to broaden Walters' understanding of human complexity and lead to him showing a little grace himself. I'll hope that he doesn't go the MAGA route of deciding that his own failings don't matter because he is not like those Other Terrible People. 

The couple has said they plan to co-parent with their children's needs in mind, and I wish them luck with that. There is no guilt like divorced parent guilt. I've taught plenty of children of divorce and co-parented two of my own, and while each situation has its own challenges, mostly what I've learned is that the biggest damage is done when a parental divorce leads to children learning that they are not the most important thing in their parents' lives, that they are less important than revenge or anger or self-indulgence. 

Walters has never been a serious person (well, maybe back when he was an actual classroom teacher) and he used every ounce of his power to promote an unserious version of school, not intended to educate students to find their way and be fully human in the world. Instead, the culture warrior model of education  is a place where children are empty drones to be stamped into a particular two-dimensional mold in a version of the world that says people get what they deserve and they had damned well better follow the rules (which include things like "make lots of babies" and "women stay home and serve while their husband takes care of Important Stuff") and know their place. 

This is not a serious approach to being truly human in the world, and every fifteen minutes the real world, and every time one of these people gets their hands on real power over education, children suffer for it. Meanwhile, roughly every fifteen minutes, real life trips one of these guys up, unserious people facing a serious moment. Sometimes they block it out with denial, sometimes their weak and brittle views break, and sometimes they grow up a bit. Walters (and family) deserves the space and grace to find their way forward, even if some of us are not inclined to give it to him. 

In the meantime, we should remember that this is why education should present young humans with a full, rich, complicated, and even controversial of the world as it exists, all black and grey and white and wiggly, rather than trying to lock them into some two-dimensional tiny unserious view of the world that tries to pretend that a whole range of humans and human experience does not exist. 

For Retiring Teachers

I've been out here in the retiree pasture for a few years now (it's a lovely place upstate, with many frolicking dogs) and as some teachers are staring down the last few weeks of their teaching careers, let me offer them some advice. Here's what's waiting for you.

First, make some noise on your way out.

My regret is that I didn't throw a bigger party. Seriously. Some combination of not wanting to be That Hey Look At Me Guy and survivor's guilt (this hits hard for some folks, because when retiring from teaching is like leaping off a train barreling full speed down the tracks, and you are leaving behind others to continue work that you didn't finish--because teaching is never finished)-- anyway, I should have invited every other teacher in the building and every other person I could think of and made some noise, but I didn't want to be a bother. 

Have a project.

Everyone tells you this. Some of us go at it a bit more aggressively than others, but I don't think a teacher brain can shift easily to simply idling. The teacher brain is generally running 147 different threads all at once, and suddenly running 0 can cause the brain to just lock up. You may think you can handle a life of leisure because you went on vacation during the summer that one time, but be honest-- you were lying on the inflatable turtle in the middle of the pool and one little corner of your brain was still figuring out how to tweak that one unit for September and maybe you could rearrange the seating in your room and did you remember to order those posters yet? 

Volunteer. Start working through your pile of unread books. Travel. Take a cooking class. Find something for your brain to chew on. It took me a while to get past the feeling that there was something I was supposed to be doing, but wasn't. Being a stay-at-home dad for a couple of small children helped with that, but I don't recommend it as a solution for everyone.

Time is different on the outside.

At some point in retirement, you will think, "How did I get all this done and work full-time, too?" The answer is that teacher time is different than retiree time.

Teacher: I have a two-minute break at 10:03, so I can get some copies made, get another fifty grades in the grade book, and go pee.

Retiree: I volunteered to sit in the booth from 10:00 to 10:30, so I guess my whole morning is filled up.

The rhythms of dealing with people

For decades you have been dealing with other humans on a large scale, working to deliberately engage with dozens (elementary) or hundreds (secondary) of students and family members. They become a major factor of how you go through your days, and then, after nine months or so, they leave. 

This is not a natural rhythm for human interactions. I hope your own social and emotional health was anchored outside the classroom, but even so, retirement is a whole new game. If you're an extrovert, you may find yourself craving new sources of human interaction. If you're an introvert, you may find that the part of you that engages with other humans is screaming for a major break. At the beginning of my career, I replaced a guy whose retirement plan was to sit on the porch, read books, drink beer, and talk to nobody. 

Weeks full of Fridays

Other retirees may joke about how every day is Saturday, but teachers know that special Friday afternoon feeling, like you've been dragging a loaded semi with a chain for five days, and you just got to set the chain down. For the first year or two, it felt like Friday afternoon a lot. 

Have your support system

Another one of my retirement secrets was to be married to an exceptionally excellent woman. So I had that going for me, as well as the many connections that come from being active in many small-town activities like theater and band. A church home can be nice, too.

But you may fine that maintaining your web of humans may take more deliberate work on your part. Being at work put you in natural connection with your web of workplace proximity associates, and you aren't going to have that. If you want to stay connected, you will have to reach out. As far as the school itself goes, you will be a ghost in 3-5 years. Your work friends will be busy in the dailiness of the work, and you will not, so maintaining those relationships will take deliberate effort.

Share

You have a wealth of knowledge and experience, both in terms of content knowledge and educational expertise. You know how to organize large groups of cat-like humans. You know how to manage an undersized budget. You know how to help people understand stuff. You know what life in a classroom is actually like. 

There are people and organizations out there that would benefit from what you know. Maybe you can be some sort of activist or communicator about education, or maybe your skills can be put to work in a non-education space. Maybe it is individual humans rather than organizations that can benefit from what you know. 

Whatever the case, you still have plenty to contribute to the world. Teachers are too often reluctant to get involved, to push themselves out into the world. The "just" in "I'm just a teacher" keeps a lot of smart, capable people from making as much noise as they could. And I get it-- when you're dealing with the dailiness of your classroom, it's hard to find the bandwidth for wading into other ponds. But you don't have to deal with the dailiness any more, and you are not "just a retired teacher." You are an experienced education professional with a wealth of experience and knowledge. Somebody can use that.

Finally

People still ask if I miss it, and the truth is that, in many ways, I do. The actual teaching parts were, mostly, great, though there is a tendency as a retiree to remember the best parts and not, say, the class that sat there like bumps on a log despite your best efforts. If you've taught more than six months, you have acquired a list of failures, moments when you just didn't get things to fall the way you wanted them to, and I can report that those haunt you a bit less in retirement.

Mostly I miss the actual teaching (when it goes well). I opposite-of-miss the bureaucracy, the stupid paperwork, the stultifying compliance culture, the bosses who were way more worried about stuff that didn't help me do my job, the time wasted on junk like the Big Standardized Test and BS Test prep, the-- well, it's not a short list. But the work itself? That was golden, and I'll never regret a second of it.

That question (do you miss it) is not always asked in good faith; sometimes it's asked in the same way that some people encourage a newly-married couple to smash the wedding cake into each others' faces. They just want to see someone else be miserable, so while the DYMI question is complicated and nuanced, I don't want to cater to anyone who just wants to hear me smash cake in the profession's face. I can tell them truthfully that it was the best job in the world, and if I had it to do over again, I would, and I'm still a tiny bit jealous of my former colleagues who are still in the classroom doing the work. 

ICYMI: Essay Contest Edition (5/3)

 Once a year, I'm the director of a local writing competition for high school students in the various school districts of the county. The competition is in honor of one of the giants of English teaching in our area; she graduated from here, worked in the original OSS, became a lady CEO, taught English, and left the classroom only because there was such a thing as a mandatory retirement age (you can read about her here). 

The contest has run for thirty-some years, and it is precisely the sort of thing that cheatbots make challenging, though historically our winners write way better than bots do, and I work hard to design a bot-resistant prompt. But it's a fun time for me-- part of my duties include being first reader and culling the hundreds of entries down to a manageable stack for table judges. 

So that has been my week. But I still have a reading list for you. 

The Atlantic Platforms Charter School Propaganda: Anti-Woke Edition

Paul Thomas responds to the Atlantic piece about how awesome charters are and how anti-racism is killing public schools. 

Oligarchs and Christian Nationalists Aim to Plunder Massachusetts Public Schools

Maurice Cunningham peels back the masks on another Massachusetts assault on public education, and reminds us that National Parents Union is none of those three things.

AI gives more praise, less criticism to Black students

Lots of implications to mull over in this finding, written up by Jill Barshay at Hechinger Report.

Most School Vouchers Go To Students Who Never Attended Public Schools

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a nifty bar chart that lays out in quick and simple manner where the taxpayer-funded vouchers are actually going.

Epic founders Harris, Chaney bound for criminal trial as 2-year preliminary hearing ends

One of the nation's major charter school scams might actually result in jail time for the scammers who pocketed $22 million of taxpayer dollars in their massive fraud.

Why We Are Suing the Department of Education

It's not just that the Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department has decided only the civil rights of white guys are being threatened-- it's that they're being anti-transparent about what they are and are not doing. ProPublica has sued, and here explains why.

What Will It Take To Get AI Out of Schools?

Don't know how I missed this last week, but this New Yorker piece from Jessica Winter is well worth the read (if you can get to it).

The Big Tech Backlash

Jennifer Berkshire looks at some of the pushback against ed tech, including some of the surprising places it's turning up.

We Created the Lotus Eaters

Matt Brady writes about the students who are comfortable non-starters, and how to get them back into work.

I Write the Songs

On songwriting, music teaching, and mistakes. From Nancy Flanagan.

Broken Record

Audrey Watters finds herself writing about the same stuff, again, again. And yet, it is stuff that needs to be said, again, again.

Seniors and Kids as Profit Centers: Medicare Advantage and School Vouchers Exploit Both

Bruce Lesley explains how Medicare Advantage and school vouchers are manifesting the same philosophy to harvest profits (and provide minimum service).

Ohioans: Please Do Not Sign Petition to Get Referendum to End Property Taxes on the November Ballot

Jan Resseger has an important message for folks in Ohio.

Standardized testing and scripted lessons are failing both teachers and students

Johnathan Kantrowitz is talking about Australia in this post, but some of the description sure sounds familiar (including panic over declining test scores).

The Testing Ritual and the Steakhouse Reality

Testing, staffing, and working lunches-- TC Weber looks at it all with one raised eyebrow and more than a few questions.

Problems with the DOE's AI Guidance

There has been a lot of noise and wrestling about with the New York City schools' attempt to craft AI guidance, and while I don't generally look to NYC for guidance on anything, these five objections from Leonie Haimson are an excellent guide to the sort of questions you should be asking about your local school district's attempt to cope with AI. If you want more, Chalkbeat covers the parent rebellion here.

Kent State President claps back at Vivek. It's about damn time.

A university leader actually calls out a politician's dumb ideas. More of this, please. Stephen Dyer has the details.

At Forbes.com this week, I wrote about some important characteristics of rural schools. 

I don't love the Black Eyed Peas, but I do like an unexpected team-up.