Showing posts sorted by date for query free market. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query free market. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, June 26, 2025

Mattel Promises AI Toys

Today in our latest episode of Things Nobody Asked For, we've got the announcement that Mattel has teamed up with the folks at OpenAI to bring you toys that absolutely nobody has asked for.

It's a "strategic collaboration," say the folks at Mattel corporate. The announcement comes with lots of corporate argle bargle bullshit:
Brad Lightcap, Chief Operating Officer at OpenAI, said: "We're pleased to work with Mattel as it moves to introduce thoughtful AI-powered experiences and products into its iconic brands, while also providing its employees the benefits of ChatGPT. With OpenAI, Mattel has access to an advanced set of AI capabilities alongside new tools to enable productivity, creativity, and company-wide transformation at scale." 
Josh Silverman, Chief Franchise Officer at Mattel, said: “Each of our products and experiences is designed to inspire fans, entertain audiences, and enrich lives through play. AI has the power to expand on that mission and broaden the reach of our brands in new and exciting ways. Our work with OpenAI will enable us to leverage new technologies to solidify our leadership in innovation and reimagine new forms of play.”

You'll note that the poor meat widgets who work for Mattel are going to have to deal with AI and the "new tools to enable productivity, creativity, and company-wide transformation at scale." 

As for play, well, who knows. Mattel's big sellers include Uno. If you don't have card-playing children in your home, you may be unaware that Uno now comes in roughly 647 different versions, including some that have new varieties of cards ("Draw 125, Esther!") and some that involve devices to augment game play, like a card cannon that fires cards at your face in an attempt to get you to drop out of the game before your face is sliced to ribbons. So maybe the AI will design new cards, or we'll have a new tower that requires you to eat a certain number of rocks based on whatever credit score it makes up for you.

Mattel is also the Hot Wheels company, so I suppose we could have chatting toy cars that trash talk each other. Maybe they could more efficiently make the "bbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrooom" motor noises quickly and efficiently, leaving children more free time to devote to other stuff. The AI could also design new cars; I'm holding out for the Datamobile that collects as much family surveillance data as possible and then drives itself to a Mattel station where it can download all that surveillance info to... well, whoever wants to pay for it.

But I think the real possibilities are with Mattel's big seller-- Barbie! Imagine a Barbie who can actually chat with little girls and have real simulated conversations so that the little girls don't have to have actual human friends. 

The possibilities of this going horribly wrong are as limitless as a teen's relationship questions. Which of course are being asked of chatbots, because they trained on the internet and the internet is nothing if not loaded with sexual material. So yes, chatbots are sexting with teens. Just one of the many reasons that some auth0orities suggest that kids under 18 should not be messing with AI "companions" at all. 

Maybe Mattel isn't going to do anything so rash. Maybe Barbie will just have a more 21st century means of spitting out one of several pre-recorded messages ("Math is fun!") Please, God, because an actual chatbot-powered Barbie would be deeply monstrous.

Scared yet? Just remember-- everything a bot "hears" and responds to it can also store, analyze and hand off to whoever is interested. Don't think if it as giving every kid a "smart" toy-- think of it as giving every kid a monitoring device to carry and be surveilled by every minute of the day. And yes, a whole bunch of young humans are already mostly there thanks to smartphones, but this would expand the market. Maybe you are smart enough to avoid giving your six year old a smartphone, but gosh, a doll or a car that can talk with them, like a Teddy Ruxpin with less creep and more vocabulary-- wouldn't that be sweet.

It's not clear to me how much AI capability can be chipped into a child's toy (do we disguise it by giving Barbie an ankle bracelet?) especially if the toymakers don't figure out how to get Barbie or the Datamobile logged into the nearest wi-fi. Best case scenario is that this mostly results in shittier working conditions for people at Mattel and toys that disappoint children by being faux AI. Worst case is a bunch of AI and child horror stories, plus a monstrous expansion of surveillances state (buy Big Brother Barbie today!). 

But I have a hard time imagining any universe in which we look back on this "team" and think, "Gosh, I'm really glad that happened."

Monday, May 26, 2025

The Perverse Incentives of School Choice

When researcher Josh Cowen is talking about the negative effects of school vouchers on education, he often points at "subprime" private schools-- schools opened in strip malls or church basements or some other piece of cheap real estate and operated by people who are either fraudsters or incompetents or both. 

This is a feature, not a bug. Because as much as choice advocates tout the awesomeness of competition, the taxpayer-funded free market choice system that we've been saddled with has built in perverse incentives that guarantee competition will be focused on the wrong things.

The free market does not foster superior quality; the free market fosters superior marketing. Now, the marketing can be based on superior quality, but sometimes it's just easier to go another way. 

The thing about voucher schools is that quality is not what makes them money. What makes them money is signing people up.

That's it. Voucher school operators don't have to run a good school; they just have to sell the seats. Once the student is signed up and their voucher dollars are in the bank, the important part of the transaction is over. There is no incentive for the school to spend a pile of money on doing a good job; all the incentive is for the school to come up with a good marketing plan.

Betsy DeVos liked to compare the free market for schools with a row of food trucks, which was wrong for a host of reasons, but one was the market speed. Buy lunch at a food truck, and you become part of the marketing very quickly. Within minutes, you are either a satisfied customer telling your friends to eat there, or warning everyone to stay away. Reputations are built quickly.

But for schools, the creation of a reputation for quality takes a long time, time measured in years. The most stable part of the voucher school market is schools that already have their reputation in place from years of operation. But if you are a start-up, you need to get that money for those seats right now. If you are a struggling crappy private school with a not-so-great reputation, you don't have time to turn that around; you've got to up your marketing game right now. 

So the focus (and investment) goes toward marketing and enrollment.

Won't your poor performance catch up with you? Maybe, but the market turns over yearly, as students age out and age in to school. And you don't have to capture much of it. If you are in an urban center with 100,000 students and your school just needs to fill 100 seats, disgruntled former families won't hurt you much-- just get out there and pitch to the other 99,900 students. And if you do go under, well, you made a nice chunk of money for a few years, and now you can move on to your next grift.

This is also why the "better" private schools remain unavailable to most families holding a voucher. If a reputation for quality is your main selling point, you can't afford to let in students who might hurt that record of success. 

Meanwhile, talk to teachers at some of the less-glowing private and charter schools about the amount of pressure they get to make the student numbers look good. 

Because of the way incentives are structured, the business of a voucher school is not education. The business of the voucher school is to sell seats, and the education side of the business exists only to help sell seats. Our version of a free market system guarantees that the schools will operate backwards, an enrollment sales business with classrooms set up with a primary purpose of supporting the sales department, instead of vice versa.

Charter schools? The same problem, but add one other source of revenue-- government grants. Under Trump, the feds will offer up a half a billion dollars to anyone who wants to get into the charter biz, and we already know that historically one dollar out of every four will go to fraud or waste, including charter businesses that will collect a ton of taxpayer money and never even open.

"Yeah, well," say the haters. "Isn't that also true for public schools"

No, it is not. Here's why. Public schools are not businesses. They are service providers, not commodity vendors. Like the post office, like health care in civilized countries, like snow plows, like (once upon a time) journalism, their job is to provide a necessary service to the citizens of this country. Their job should be not to compete, but to serve, for the reasons laid out here. 

And this week-ass excuse for accountability-- if you do a bad enough job, maybe it will make it harder for your marketing department-- has been sold as the only accountability that school choice needs.

School choice, because its perverse incentives favor selling seats over educating students, is ripe for enshittification, Cory Doctorow's name for the process by which operators make products deliberately worse in order to make them more profitable. The "product" doesn't have to be good-- just good enough not to mess up the sales. And with no meaningful oversight to determine where the "good enough" line should be drawn, subprime voucher and charter schools are free to see just how close to the bottom they can get. It is far too easy to transform into a backwards business, which is why it should not be a business at all. 

If your foundational belief is that nobody ever does anything unless they can profit from it (and therefor everything must be run "like a business") then we are in "I don't know how to explain that you should care about other people" territory, and I'm not sure what to tell you. What is the incentive to work in a public education system? That's a whole other post, but I would point to Daniel Pink's theory of motivation-- autonomy, mastery and purpose. Particular a purpose that is one centered on making life better for young human beings and a country better for being filled with educated humans. I am sure there are people following that motivation in the school choice world, but they are trapped in a model that is inhospitable to such thinking.

Monday, May 12, 2025

ICE vs. Filipino Teachers

This week news broke of an ICE raid on Maui, with the US official thug patrol out to grab any brown people who might present “threats to national security or public safety, or who otherwise undermine the integrity of U.S. immigration laws.”

The “targeted, intelligence-­driven operation" included rounding up some of the Filipino teachers who work in Hawaiian schools. Said one special agent
For the safety of the agents and the occupants, residents of the home were briefly detained and interviewed in addition to the search. At the conclusion of the search, HSI special agents left the location without any arrests made.

 I'm sure that left the Filipino with a warm, fuzzy, welcome-to-the-United-States feeling inside, and that this will in no way affect Hawaii's attempt to shore up the teacher shortage with imported educators.

But here's a thing worth noting-- Hawaii is not the only state with Filipino teachers. 

Way back in 2014, in an article now accessible only via Wayback machine, Joseph Willams at takepart, a website that has since shut down, reported on the rise of the Philippines as a source for teachers. Heck, Williams pointed back to a PBS piece from 2011 about four Filipina teachers who took jobs in Baltimore. Williams found teachers transplanted from the Philippines to Louisiana, Arizona, Los Angeles, and Kansas.

And a decade later, it's still a thing. There are agencies devoted to placing Filipino teachers in the US. There are websites explaining how to get a job here. There are still periodic stories about how this is working out, like this 2022 Washington Post portrait of a Filipina teacher trying "to help save a struggling school in rural Arizona." There are whole youtube channels by Filipino teachers, like this one from Alyssa who appears to teach in Arizona. Her channel covers everything from how to find a US job, to filling out the paperwork, to issues like what to do if a student lies. She has posted 271 videos, has almost 39K subscribers, and also runs a busy Facebook page.

Here's short video on the issues involved, focusing on a teacher in the schools of Shelby, Montana, a city of fewer that 4,000 people. 

The video hits several of the issues involved, but the title-- What if your Filipino teacher disappeared-- points to one in particular. These teachers come on J-1 visas, which are good for 5 years for teachers. The video is from 2019. 

But these programs have always been problematic, a kind of low-cost outsourcing that let's policy leaders use the "teacher shortage" as an excuse to look for cheaper "solutions"--anything to avoid the basic free market lesson that if nobody wants your job, you have to sweeten the offer. Instead, the "exchange" teacher program lets states look for a place where people think te unsweetened pot looks like a good deal. I can't fault the Filipino teachers for grabbing a good opportunity. I can't even fauilt small towns like Shelby for searching for ways that fill gaps and don't break their bank. But this is a patc h, not a solution. And sometimes it's not even that.

In some cases the programs are borderline human trafficking. In 2017, one of these placement companies lost a lawsuit filed by 350 Filipino teachers "who were held in virtual bondage." And that was in Baton Rouge-- you know, coastal Louisiana where 7500 teachers were laid off after Hurricane Katrina. I'm pretty sure that's a region where there were options beyond outsourcing to law-cost Filipino teachers. But Filipino teachers are cheap, and while they depend on those visas, they are unlikely to cause trouble. 

Now, the current regime looks to gather up any immigrant who has any kind of smudge on their record (because to fulfill the promise of deporting millions of hardened criminals, the regime has to redefine "hardened criminals"), and it has to be scary for some of those teachers here on a visa as "exchange" teachers. 

I'm wondering how many of the targets in Maui were relatives of the teachers, but I feel certain the Maui teachers won't be the last exchange teachers to get a visit from ICE. These programs, like much of US immigration, have problems, but my solution of choice wouod not be to turn the US into a hostile police state where immigrants have to worry about someone kicking down the door to drag them away. 

I don't love the Filipino teacher patch for US schyools, but it is clearly working for some folks. Being in ICE crosshairs will clearly not help it work better.

Friday, May 9, 2025

The Failed Case for Super-NAEPery

At The74 (the nation's most uneven education coverage), Goldy Brown (Whitworth U and AEI/CERN) and Christos Makridis (Labor Economics and ASU) have a bold idea that involves putting fresh paint on a bad old idea--the national Big Standardized Test.

Their set-up is the usual noise about how the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) peaked around 2013, which is true if you also believe that the rise that carries I-80 across the Bonneville Salt Flats is also a peak. They are more accurate when they say that "student outcomes" (aka "Big Standardized Test scores") have "largely stagnated" over recent decades. 

Yep, it's a roller coaster

Let me digress for just a moment to note the oddness of that idea of stagnation--as if test scores should keep rising like stock prices and property values. Each cohort of students should be smarter and better than the one before, a thing that would happen... why? What's the theory here? Each year's children will be genetically better than those that came before? That every teacher will significantly up her game with every passing year (because the students rotate out at a much higher rate than the teachers)? Schools get better at gaming the tests? If the expectation is that each successive group of students will score higher than the group before, what is supposed to cause that to happen? And how does it square with the people who think that education should be going "back" to something like "basics"? I mean, doesn't the vision of non-stagnating test scores include students who are all smarter and more knowledgeable than their parents? 

Okay, digression over. The authors also point out that Dear Leader and his crew have "downsized" the staff that oversees the NAEP (while simultaneously insisting that NAEPing will continue normally)-- but they argue that the kneecapping will "create an opportunity to rethink the role this tool can play."

In particular, the Trump Administration could explore using the NAEP to promote greater transparency among schools, parents, and local communities, as well to enhance academic rigor and ensure genuine accountability in a comparable way across schools and states. That would mean replacing a disparate collection of state tests will a single national assessment administered to every fourth and eighth grade student every year.

Yikes. I checked quickly to see if Brown and Makridis are over 15 years of age, because if so, they should remember pretty clearly that the feds have tried this exact thing before. Every state was supposed to measure their Common Core achievements by taking the same BS Test, except then that turned out to be two BS Tests (PAARC and SBA) but then those turned out to be expensive and not-very-good tests and states started dumping them, while folks from all ends of the spectrum noted that this sure looked like an illegal attempt to control curriculum from the federal level.

With national standards and national testing, supporters argued, we would be able to compare students from Utah and Ohio, as if that was something anyone actually wanted to do. As if in Utah parents were saying, "Nice report card, Pat, but what I really want to know is how your test scores compare to the test scores of some kid in Teaneck, New Jersey."

No, these guys have to remember those days, because they are well versed in all the same bad arguments made at the time.

Parents, educators, and state leaders agree that more information — not more bureaucracy — is needed to make informed decisions for their children and communities, as well as to foster greater competition. Making the NAEP a truly national assessment would provide this information in a consistent, credible, and actionable manner.

Right. Test scores would be great for unleashing free market forces in a free market, education-as-a-commodity choice system. Also, competition doesn't unleash anything useful in education. Also also, choice fans have mostly stopped using this talking point because it turns out charter and voucher schools don't actually do any better on BS Tests. Get up to date, guys-- today it's all "choice is a virtue in and of itself" and "parents should get to choose a school that matches their values."  

The writers call for the NAEP to be cranked out every year instead of every other, and for every student instead of the current sampling. No sweat, they say, because every state already has stuff in place for their own state test. 

But an annual universal NAEP would be great because it's a "consistent and academically rigorous measure of student performance." There's a huge amount of room to debate that, but it only sort of matters because the writers have fallen into the huge fallacy of NAEP and PISA and all the rest of these data-generating numbers. "If we had some good solid data," says the fallacy, "then we could really Get Shit Done." We would Really Know how students are doing, we would Really Know about how bad the state tests are, and we would Really Know where the issues in the system are.

It's an appealing notion, and it has never, ever worked. For one thing, nobody can even agree on what critical terms like "proficient" mean when it comes to NAEP. But more importantly, the solid data of NAEP never solves anything. Everyone grabs a slice, applies it to the policies they were busy pushing anyway, and NAEP solves nothing, illuminates nothing, settles nothing

The writers also want to use the test illegally in a method now familiar to both political parties. Tie Title I funding to compliance with NAEP testing mandates and presto-- "States would have a stronger incentive to align their instructional practices with higher expectations." In other words, test + money = federal control of local curriculum. Not okay.

They would also like the test to provide feedback to parents about their individual students. This also repeats a critical error of every BS Test to come down the pike. Tests are designed for a particular purpose and one should not attempt to apply them to a host of other purposes-- doing so gets you junk. Also, I still don't believe that conversation in Utah is happening. But this notion--
A national benchmark can support local autonomy while enabling cross-district comparisons that inform parents, educators, and policymakers alike.
Producing a test that generates data useful to all three groups is less likely than capturing a yeti riding a unicorn that is pooping rainbows.

The writers also argue that states could save money if the feds forced them to replace their current batteries of BS Tests with NAEP instead in just 4th and 8th grade. I suppose that depends on the test manufacturer who secures this national testing monopoly.

Their last argument is that universal NAEPery would "offer a balanced form of federal oversight." That means "less intrusive than programmatic mandates" which are not so much intrusive as they are illegal. At any rate, national standardized tests intended to drive programmatic choices are still pretty damned intrusive. 

Now for the wrap up. Starting with this understatement:
Federal initiatives to improve student outcomes have historically produced mixed results.
Yes, and theater trips to see "Our American Cousin" have historically produced mixed results for Presidents. Of the whole list of "mixed" results, they include just the Obama era attempt to use test scores to drive teacher improvement (well, not "improvement" exactly, but teaching to the test in order to raise scores). 

They say one right thing, which is "that policy tools must be both well-designed and responsive to local implementation contexts." But they follow that with "designating NAEP as the national assessment meets both criteria." And no, no it wouldn't, and we know it wouldn't because the last time we tried this national BS Test thing, it went very poorly. This is such a classic reformster construct-- "Historically this thing has failed, so we think the solution is to do it some more, harder."
In an era of educational fragmentation, the NAEP stands out as a uniquely credible and underutilized tool. Repurposing it as the primary national assessment — administered annually to all 4th and 8th graders in states receiving Title I dollars — would promote transparency, reduce redundant testing, and align incentives around higher academic standards. This reform would offer a shared benchmark to evaluate progress across states and districts. At a time when parents, educators, and policymakers are calling for both accountability and flexibility, a restructured NAEP provides a rare opportunity to deliver both.
Is that what parents, e3ducators, and policymakers are calling for, really? Doesn't matter, because NAEP provides nothing special for accountability (certainly not before we have a long, long conversation about accountability to whom and for what) and it certainly doesn't provide flexibility, not even under their repeat of the old argument that states could decide how to meet the national test standards, which is like telling someone "You can get to Cleveland any way you want as long as you arrive at E.9th and Superior within the next six hours seated in a blue Volkswagon, listening to Bob Marley, and eating a taco. Totally up to you what meat is in the taco, though. See? Flexible."

You know what's really flexible? An end to federal mandates for a nationalized Big Standardized Test. 


Friday, March 28, 2025

Oh, Bill. Hush.

The important thing to remember is that Bill Gates has never been right about education.

He invested heavily in a small schools initiative. It failed, because he doesn't understand how schools work.

He tried fixing teachers and playing with merit pay. He inflicted Common Core on the nation, because again, he doesn't understand how schools and teaching and education work. He has tried a variety of other smaller fixes, like throwing money at teacher professional development. He has made an almost annual event out of explaining that NOW he has things figured out (spoiler alert: he does not) and with the new tweaks, he will now transform education (spoiler alert: he does not).

I remind you of all this because nobody should be freaking out over the recent headlines that Gates has predicted that AI will replace teachers and doctors in ten years and humans will, just in general, be obsolete. The Economist called this prediction "alarming," and I suppose it might be if there were any reason to imagine that Gates can make such predictions any more accurately than the guy who takes care of my car at Jiffy Lube.

AI tutors will become broadly available and AI doctors provide great medical advice in an era of "free intelligence." It's all “very profound and even a little bit scary — because it’s happening very quickly, and there is no upper bound,” Gates told Harvard professor Arthur Brooks (the happiness research guy).

Meanwhile, tech companies still won't make and market a printer that reliably does what it's supposed to as a reasonable price. 

Ed tech is always predicting terrific new futures, because FOMO is a powerful marketing force, and making your product seem inevitable is the tech version of an old used car sales technique (called "assume the sale," you just frame the conversation as if the decision to buy the car has already been made and now we're just dickering over terms).

I'm not here to predict the future of AI. I'm sure it will be good for some things ("Compare Mrs. Smith's knee MRI image to a million other images to diagnose what's going on") and terrible for others ("ChatGPT, please answer this email from Pat's parents for me"). 

I'm not sure what the future holds for AI in education, and I am sure that Bill Gates has no idea, either. I am also sure I know which one of us has a better understanding of education and schools and teaching (spoiler alert: not the one with all the money).

Ed tech bros are, like Bill, putting a lot of their bot bets on AI tutors--just sit a kid down with a screen set to "Teach the student grammar and usage" and let it rip. The thing is, we've been playing with education-via-screen for decades now, and it has still not proven itself or taken off. You may recall we ran a fairly large experiment in distance learning via screen back in 2020, and people really hated it-- so much that some of them are still bitching about it.

I'm not sure what is going to be "free" about the AIU when it is so expensive to make, and I'm not sure how obsolete Gates imagines humans will be. It may be that he just dreams of a world in which he doesn't have to deal with any those meat sack Lessers.

But the thing to remember is that the Gates track record in education is the story of a lot of money burned to accomplish nothing except choking a lot of people on the smoke from the fire. 

We will never escape our culture's tendency to assume that if someone has a bunch of money, they are expert at anything at which they wish to pretend to be expert. So people are always going to ask Gates what he thinks about education and its intersection with technology. I'd love to see the day when he says, "You know, I don't really know enough about education to make a comment on that," but until that day comes, we don't have to get excited about whatever he says. 


Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Another Anti-Union Teacher Union

Those wacky folks at the Freedom Foundation are at it again, trying to convince teachers to dismantle their own unions. And they have a new high-profile edubro to help.

Who are they? Well, their website gives us a good introduction to them:
The Freedom Foundation is more than a think tank. We’re more than an action tank. We’re a battle tank that’s battering the entrenched power of left-wing government union bosses who represent a permanent lobby for bigger government, higher taxes, and radical social agendas.
Their language when approaching teachers and other members of public sector unions is a lot about liberating public employees from political exploitation. Their language in spaces like fundraising letters is a bit more blunt:
The Freedom Foundation has a proven plan for bankrupting and defeating government unions through education, litigation, legislation and community activation ... we won’t be satisfied with anything short of total victory against the government union thugs.
Destroy unions and defund the political left. And they work hard at it, too. They have put an army of foot soldiers out there going door to door in hopes of turning an entire state blue. In one example, they sent activists dressed as Santa Claus to stand outside government buildings, where they told workers they could give themselves a holiday gift by exercising their right not to pay that portion of union dues that goes to political activity.

The foundation was launched in 1991 as the Evergreen Freedom Foundation by Lynn Harsh and Bob Williams. These days Harsh is VP of Strategy for the State Policy Network, the national network of right wing thinky tanks and advocacy groups founded in 1992 (it appears that the foundation may have helped with that launch). Her bio says she started out as a teacher and went on to found two private schools. Williams was a Washington state politician and failed gubernatorial candidate. He went on to work with SPN and ALEC, the conservative corporate legislation mill before passing away in 2022. SPN started giving out an award in his name in 2017.

The foundation is not small potatoes operation-- the staff itself is huge, and the foundation operates out of offices in five states (Washington, Oregon, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania).

Longtime CEO Tom McCabe is now the Chairman of the Board, and he has been pretty clear in his aims. “Labor bosses are the single greatest threat to freedom and opportunity in America today,” he wrote in one fundraising letter. The current CEO is Aaron Withe, the guy who headed up the door-to-door campaign the get Oregon union members to quit their unions. Presumably he didn't go door to door with the same smarm evident in his company bio pic.

The foundation gets money from a variety of the usual suspects, including the Koch family foundations, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Donors Trust, Ed Uihlein Family Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the State Policy Network. The have gotten small mountains of money from the Bradley Foundation, which also heavily funds the anti-union Center for Union Facts.

Many of these same folks helped fund the Janus lawsuit that did away with Fair Share, and the Freedom Foundation was one of the groups that immediately started to work to get teachers to leave their unions.

The Freedom Foundation has tried various pr stunts to get teachers to quit the union, like the time they sent out Halloween mailers exhorting teachers to "Stop these money-sucking vampires and TAKE BACK YOUR PAYCHECK TODAY"

But now they've added a new feature to the mix. Meet the Teacher Freedom Alliance-- an alternative to those evil unions! It's even Free Market! (What does a free market union even mean? Shut up, you!)

They held a big launch party for TFA (they should have checked to see if that acronym was taken) with special guest ranter, Oklahoma's Education Dudebro-in-chief, Ryan Walters! Walters pointed out that the union fights him on cool stuff like merit pay and signing bonuses. Of course, merit pay has never worked and is usually just an excuse to lower base pay, and signing bonuses are a one-time raise that is useless for things like home loans. But Walters is sad that they draw opposition from those awful unions that he has called terrorist organizations (meaning either they are really awful or Walters is easily terrorized). 
Walters's part of the festivities is a greatest hits collection. Teachers union is on the run! The Left is mad about dismantling the Department of Education (cheers) because they want bureaucrats in DC to tell teachers how to teach math, how they should teach our kids that America's an evil racist country. He even brings up Common Core! Free market, which I guess turns out to mean that the market tells teachers how much they can have. That teachers union-- they don't care about teachers or students. And Trump is great. And we should put the Bible in classrooms. 

Walters has gone all-in on promoting TFA, which has led at least one Oklahoma legislator to ask the state attorney general if it's legal for the state education chief to use state resources to promote this thing. Just add that to the list of Walters's questionable choices in office. Meanwhile, he issues a typical non-statement statement in response as reported by Murray Evans at The Oklahoman
"Democrats and union bosses are grasping at straws because teachers finally have a real choice," Walters said. "My office will always communicate with educators about their options, no matter how much it upsets the political establishment."
So what is TFA offering? For one thing, culture panic:
We are a group for teachers and by teachers, ready to change the direction of public education, returning us to traditional, American values. Excellence, not ideology.

On the website, that's in all caps. I spared you the shouting.

Turns out the "by teachers" part is a stretch. The three members of "the team" include Rachel Maiorana is the Director of Marketing and Advocacy; she is also the former Deputy National Director of the Freedom Foundation after serving as California Outreach director since 2021. She was also a Campus Coordinator for Turning Point USA, after doing "brand ambassador work for Coke and serving as a cheerleading coach. Coms degree from Cal State Fullerton.

Director of Member Programs Ali Abshire joined the program in December 2024. Before that she was a Behavioral Health Specialist at Cincinatti Children's, a program officer at the Reagan Ranch, a nanny, a kitchen team member at Chick-fil-A in Lynchburg, and a manager at Zoup! Eatery! Her BS in psychology is from Liberty University in 2022.

Executive Director Eloise Branch came from the Director of Teacher Engagement post at Freedom Foundation, after a couple of years as curator at Young America's Foundation (a campus conservatives outfit) and teaching for two non-consecutive years at The Classical Academy. She got her BA in History from Grove City College in 2017. GCC is about 30 minutes away from me, and it has fashioned itself into a small Hillsdale College of PA. 

So not exactly a deep bench of seasoned and experienced educators here. What benefits do they offer

Well, there's "dignifying professional development." And when it comes to that Big Deal that everyone frets about-- liability insurance-- their offer is novel. You get a chance to piggy back on the liability coverage offered to two other "alternative" teacher unions. You can choose the Christian Education Association (you can read their story here) or the Association of American Educators (more about them here). Both are longstanding non-union unions, with CEA very Christ-in-the-classroom emphasis and AAE more aligned with the Fordham-AEI axis of reformsterdom. Neither is large enough to provide credible support for a teacher in a big-time lawsuit, nor am I sure how hard they'd try to defend someone accused of reading Naughty Books or doing socialist DEI things. 

There's a third benefit offered, and that's "alternative curricula" which includes "alternative curriculums and teaching pedagogies ranging from the science of reading to classical mathematics to explicit instruction to the Socratic Method" which may lead one to ask "alternative to what?"

If you can't already guess based on the source of these folks, the website drops more hints about what these folks consider "alternative." 

We exist to develop free, moral, and upright American citizens.

That "free, moral, and upright" appears frequently. There's a blog post outlining the benefits of dismantling the department of education ("funding and decision-making authority" will shift to state and local levels, which is at least half right). There's a small assortment of news articles about education, including one from the conservative Illinois Policy website, a harmless Natalie Wexler article, a Rick Hess interview with Daniel Buck, an article from the right wing Daily Caller, and another from the wingnut right Daily Wire.

And you know, there's no reason that there can't be a right wing union for right wing teachers (though this is only the latest of many failed attempts), but their other repeated idea is "Excellence, not ideology."

We support the right of every educator in America to pursue excellence in the classroom free of ideological interference.

Except our ideology, because, you know, that's just "common sense." The fictional narrative is that teachers are too busy teaching Marx and Crazy Left Ideas to ever cover actual reading and math, which is a thing you can only believe if you have never spent any time in a public school. Anyway, by replacing Cray Lefty Stuff with academics laced with Common Sense (aka right wing ideology), we can Make America Smart Again. At the launch party, Withe said that their curricula would teach students “to love our country; we’re going to teach them that capitalism is the best economic system ever created.”

Now, how deeply they want to actually pursue this is anyone's guess, given that the organization's a wing of a group that has explicitly stated that they want to dismantle the teacher unions, which makes the actual mission of TFA secondary at best.

The launch party was attended by 50 whole educators and a bunch of Freedom Foundation staffers. 

Also worth noting-- the Center for Media and Democracy reports that Freedom Foundation tried this on a smaller scale in the Miami-Dade district, where they backed another faux union and, aided by Governor Ron DeSantis-backed anti-union legislation. They promised that they would "bring the nation's third-largest teachers union to the brink of extinction." They did not-- teachers voted 83% to 17% to stick with their existing AFT affiliate. 

TFA is mum on one other union function-- negotiating contracts. At the launch party, Withe promised that TFA would “provide benefits and resources that are far superior to anything that the teachers unions do.” He even made an emphatic gesture on "far." That's another piece of the free market fairy tale-- the free market will just pay teachers a whole lot. This is a silly argument. First of all, the free market doesn't work quite the same when you're talking about people paid with tax dollars. Second of all, the notion that people are just dying for the chance to pay great teachers a whole lot more, but that darned union is holding them back is unsupported by any reality-based evidence. You'll occasionally find young teachers declaring that left to their own devices, they could negotiate a far better deal than the union, and, oh, honey. What kind of leverage do you think you have. But even if you could, the finite pot of money that schools work with means that you would be negotiating against all the other teachers. Maybe teaching Thunderdome would be fun, but I doubt it. 

People don't pay teachers much because A) they can't afford to and B) they don't want to. And C) they especially don't want to spend a lot on education for Those Peoples' Children. And this is especially true of folks like the Freedom Foundation, who do not want to end unions for the teachers own good but because A) ending the unions would hurt the Democratic party and B) without unions, it would be even easier to pay teachers bottom dollar. 

At that same launch party, Ryan Walters said, "The Freedom Foundation-- it sounds too good to be true. I promise you it's not." I suspect he's right both times-- it's not too good, and it's not true. 

Monday, March 17, 2025

Are These The Last Days Of Public School

I know there's not a great deal of overlap between Robert Pondiscio's audience and mine, but this one is worth reading for a non-raving example of how the issues look from the other side.

Pondiscio's "The Last Days of Public School" appeared in The American Enterprise, the glossier, more magaziney outlet for the American Enterprise Institute, and you may not find it encouraging, but it is a fairly sober look at where we are.

The hook he hangs the piece on is the idea of "peak public school," the zenith of the public education, arguing that "A school choice revolution is rapidly reshaping how public education is organized, funded, and delivered in America." Pondiscio doesn't spend time analyzing the good or bad of that transformation, just the general shape and possible dangers of it.

Some of his observations, such as the fact this revolution "has spurred surprisingly little public discussion" are observations I very much agree with. I might argue that the lack of discussion has been caused in no small part by choicers who very much wanted to stay low and avoid such discussion, but it has always frustrated the hell out of me that we are changing some fundamental assumptions about what the nation's education system is supposed to be and do without really talking about it but instead acting as if we're just getting a new design on slipcovers instead of replacing the couch with a bar stool.

Pondiscio is not soft-pedaling the "revolution"

For generations, America’s K–12 public schools have been largely immune from the disruptive forces that have roiled retail, travel, entertainment, health care, and many other sectors of the economy and culture, but the reckoning has finally come. Public education is on the verge of an unprecedented crack-up. In fact, it’s already underway.

We may argue the scope and size of this crack-up, and I don't love the word "reckoning" here, as if public schools are at last paying for their sins. But it gets us to this:

The reckoning has arrived. What comes next, and the social and cultural cost of “peak public school,” is a question that demands serious consideration.

Pondiscio provides a short, pointed history of school choice in fewer sentences than I would need to summarize it. He identifies the final straw as Covid and culture wars, and here I will disagree with him. These aren't just crises that happened, but crises that were deliberately harnessed and amplified by choicers who routinely repeated the "parents saw school on Zoom and were alarmed" narrative, but stayed silent when polls showed that parents were largely satisfied with how their local schools handled Covid.

The list of other crises is debatable as well: "historic declines in student achievement, chronic absenteeism, discipline crises, and plummeting teacher morale." Sort of, in some places, yes, and yes. Of course, we may never know how the NAEP story ends, now that Trusk has fired all the data people.

Pondiscio's culture war account provides an interesting point of view. In his telling, the uneasy alliance of left and right started to crumble when "education reform’s dominant progressive wing began adopting the arguments and slogans of the social justice left to explain away the movement’s failure to close achievement gaps between black and white students." This, he suggests, is when the culture was came for the reform movement,

I would quibble with bits of that; from out here in the cheap seats, none of the "progressive" wing of reform ever looked particularly progressive (e.g. Democrats for Education Reform, specifically designed to "look" leftish). And I've never liked the term "culture war" with its suggestion that both sides are on the attack, when I see attacking mostly coming from one side only (spoiler alert: it's the side that employs Chris Rufo specifically to find ways to attack opponents). Was the pursuit of "equity" some sort of attack? That said, I've heard before of conservative reformsters stung by accusations from their supposed allies. 

But the next graph sure hits the nail-

Freed from having to make nice with their progressive colleagues, education reform conservatives went all-in on school choice and on the attack against “woke” public schools. A 2021 AEI Conservative Education Reform Network report by Jay Greene and James Paul noted that a significant number of all school choice bills passed in statehouses did so without any Democratic support. A follow-up Heritage Foundation report functionally served the education reform left with divorce papers. The pair argued that private school choice would be attractive to conservative parents concerned about teacher activism and public schools’ embrace of a social justice agenda. They concluded, “It is time for the school choice movement to embrace the culture war.”

And as Pondiscio points out, that has worked out well for them. He does fail to note one important point--that public support isn't all that deep, and that every single one of the choice movements victories has been achieved by legislators acting without, or even in spite of, public input.

From there Pondiscio moves on to rewards and risks. We disagree on the rewards, but I appreciater his clear-eyed view of the risks.

If, as seems inevitable, more Americans adopt a “choose your own adventure” style of educating their children, it could exacerbate the gaps between educational haves and have-nots and lead to an even further degradation of social cohesion.

Absolutely. No "could" about it. Because we aren't talking about a school choice movement, but a taxpayer-funded, free market school choice system, a distinction that has gone unquestioned even though neither taxpayer funding nor the free market are needed to implement school choice. But basing school choice on an educational marketplace, we are absolutely guaranteed gaps between tiers based on financial resources (see also: every market good in the country, from cars to groceries). 

Pondiscio is correct in pointing out, "While public schools have largely failed to be the 'great equalizer of the conditions of men' Mann envisioned, they have at least aspired to provide a shared foundation of civic knowledge and literacy." And also this-- "Schools transmit not just knowledge but shared values, norms, and narratives." Cato Institute in particular has argued the presence of different and conflicting values in public school families is a reason to promote school choice, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how raising students in separate ideological bubbles will bear civic benefit-- especially when some bubbles are the Mercedes Benz of bubbles and others are the used Kia.

As Pondiscio notes, we are sliding into a system in which schools have "few common guardrail." I think it's more accurate to say that some schools (public) have guardrails and others (private and charters) have none. Pondiscio has hopes that choice will allow some students to escape the low-achieving schools, though he acknowledges that leaves even more kneecapped schools and students behind. And the choice system we're growing isn't even particularly well-suited for such "rescues" because 1) quality private school costs are prohibitive and 2) choice laws have been written to privilege the private schools' ability to exclude anyone for any reason. 

Also, school choice does not guarantee better schools—only different ones. The same market forces that produce elite private schools could also create a “long tail” of low-quality options.

Exactly. We're already seeing it. 

Pondiscio gives an on-point look in the rear-view mirror.

In retrospect, the pandemic could not have come at a worse time for traditional public schools. Decades of expensive and intensive efforts to improve public education outcomes at scale have been disappointing and dispiriting. The education reform movement of the past several decades, which began with the youthful, can-do optimism of Teach For America and high-flying urban charter schools, morphed into a technocratic regime of standards, testing, and accountability that proved not just ineffective but deeply unpopular with parents and teachers alike. Even before pandemic-driven “learning loss,” long-term trends in student achievement didn’t match the effort or expenditure devoted to improving student outcomes and closing the achievement gap.

I don't think he'd say it this way, but I will-- the education reformster movement was an expensive bust that wasted money and time, degraded the teaching profession (Teach for America was not so much optimistic and hubristically disconnected from reality), and promoted a fanatical focus on hitting the wrong target-- test scores. And in the process, reformsters (some inadvertently and some absolutely on purpose) eroded public trust and faith in the institution of public schools.

Pondiscio allows that traditional zip-code public default mode education "is unlikely to disappear entirely," but his argument is that "its influence and dominance can only wane."

Have we seen the peak? We do tend to forget that there was a long slow growth, that people who try to call back some golden age of US education are fantasizing. Any trip into the even-barely-long-ago past takes us to a day when fewer Americans finished school, those that did learned less, and the promise of a good education for everyone was only barely acknowledged. We have done great things with our public system, and we have always had room to improve.

The pandemic pause gave us a chance to recalibrate the system and build back better, and we pretty much let that slip through our fingers. Now we've got a system that has been kicked around a bit by reformsters, by choicers, and by opportunistic culture panic grifters. 

Our huge gaps remain in education, mostly between the haves and the have-nots, as well as that great undiscussed divide between rural and urban. Rural communities have always been on the short end of the choice shtick because places like my county, with only a couple thousand students K-12, don't present much of a market opportunity-- and as the baby bust moves through the next decade or so, that will only get worse. Because choice in this country has been tied to free market forces, it will only ever be significant in high-population areas. I'll also go ahead and predict that at some point, taxpayers who have become convinced by the rhetoric that paints school not as a public good, but as a commodity sold to parents-- those folks will lead the charge to cut voucher support and leave even less money in a system that already favors the wealthy. This to me is one of the ironies of school choice US style-- it is perfectly constructed to reinforce and even magnify every wealth-related ill that the public system already suffers from, but without any systemic push to do better.

So things will look different, somehow. Perhaps it will look like a multi-tier system with fancy campuses filled with rich resources for children of the elite, and bare-minimum training boxes for future meat widgets. It almost certainly will look different depending on which state you live in; clearly we already have some states determined to dismantle the public system (hey there, Florida) and some that aim to preserve and support it. Or maybe we'll reach a point where pressure builds to put guardrails on choice schools, leading them to look more and more like the public schools they meant to replace. 

But I'll repeat that there is no going back to some golden age; there never was. If I had a magic wand, there are some developments of the last few decades that I'd erase, but there isn't, and I can't, and if there's one thing I've learned in life, you can only move forward from where you are, not from where you wish you were.

What I hope the very most, the brink that we are teetering on that I hope we can step back from is this--

Let's not agree to a society in which education is a private commodity, and procuring a good one for the child is the responsibility of the parent and the parent alone. Let's not agree to a society in which we have no collective obligation, investment, or responsibility for making sure that every child has a chance to learn as much and become as much as they can. Let's not wash our hands of them and say, collectively, "This child's future is not our problem, parents. This is on you." If that day comes, public school as we understand it will be gone. 


Friday, March 14, 2025

Education and Hierarchies

At her newsletter, Jennifer Berkshire has an excellent post this week-- I'm here to say two things. "Go read it" and "Yes, and..."

In "The Brutal Logic Behind Dismantling the Department of Education," Berkshire points out that much of the dismantling is aimed at outcomes like getting fewer students to attend college. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the idea that colleges were captured by crazy left-wingers in the seventies (e.g. Chris Rufo's "Laying Siege to the Institutions" speech) and the notion that going to college is distracting women from the important work of being baby-makers (e.g. the Heritage Foundation's wacky theories)

Berkshire points to the Curtis Yarvin theory that we need a techno-monarch, and that requires us to demolish the "cathedral,' the set of institutions that make ordinary people believe they Know Stuff and don't need to be ruled over.

But I think the heart of the matter is captured by Berkshire in this portion of the post:
The creepiest story I read this week had nothing to do with education but with the effort to rebuild the US semiconductor industry known as the CHIPS program. Employees in the CHIPS program office have been undergoing a now-familiar ritual: demonstrating their intellectual worth and abilities to Trump officials.
In late February, Michael Grimes, a senior official at the Department of Commerce and former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, conducted brief interviews with employees of the CHIPS Program Office, which oversees the grants.

In interactions some described as “demeaning,” Mr. Grimes asked employees to justify their intellect by providing test results from the SAT or an IQ test, said four people familiar with the evaluations. Some were asked to do math problems, like calculate the value of four to the fourth power or long division.
What does demanding IQ or SAT test results from engineers have to do with the dismantling of the Department of Education? Everything. If you start from the assumption that IQ is, not just fixed, but genetically determined, as many Trump intellectuals do, there is little case to be made for public schools that try to equalize outcomes—it can’t be done. Far better to shovel cashes at the would-be ‘cognitive elite’ (an apt description of vouchers for the well-to-do, when you think about it) than to redistribute resources to the ‘lessers.’ It’s a bleak and brutal view of the world and one that holds increasing sway on the right.

I've been talking for years about the idea that Betters and Lessers drive much ed reform. When Betsy DeVos talks about letting parents and students find the right fit for an education, what she means is that students should get the education that is appropriate for their station. No higher education for you future meat widgets!

The underlying idea is that people are not equal and that "merit" is a measure of how much Right Thinking a person does. But the important part is that there are natural hierarchies in the world and to try to lift the Lessers up from their rightful place on the bottom rungs of society's ladder is an unnatural offense against God and man. Using social safety nets or other programs to try to make their lives suck less is simply standing between them and the natural, deserved consequences of their lack of merit-- after all, if they didn't deserve to be poor, they wouldn't be poor. Life is supposed to be hard for the Lessers, and trying to make it less hard is an offense against God and man. And it is doubly offensive when we tax the Betters to fund this stuff.

For these folks, education is not supposed to be about uplift, but about sorting and suiting people for their proper place in society. This sorting could be done more efficiently if the sorting happened before they even got to school, if, in fact, the school system itself was already set up with several tiers so that Betters and Lessers could have their own schools.

I've argued for years that the free market is a lousy match for public education because the free market picks winners and loser, not just among vendors, but among customers. But for a certain type of person, that's a feature, not a bug. The Lessers shouldn't get a big fancy school with lots of programs because all they need is enough math and reading to make them employable at the Burger Store. 

Public schools also offend Betters sensibilities by trying to uphold civil rights. Berkshire nails this:

At the heart of the Trumpist intellectual project is a relatively straight-forward argument. The civil rights revolution in this country went too far and it’s time to start rolling it back. As Jack Schneider and I argue in our recent book, The Education Wars, the role that public schools have historically played in advancing civil rights makes them particularly vulnerable in this moment of intense backlash. It’s why the administration has moved with such ferocity against the most recent effort to extend civil rights through the schools—to transgender students. And it’s why the cuts to the Department of Education have fallen so heavily on its civil rights enforcement role. Of the agency's civil rights offices across the country, only five are still open.

 For some of these folks, civil rights are NOT for every human being who draws breath. Civil rights are only for those who deserve them by merit and by station and by Right Thinking. 

The idea of public education as a means of uplift for every student, undergirded by a system that protects and honors the civil rights of every person simply has no place in a certain view of the nation. And that certain view is currently in charge. 




Wednesday, March 5, 2025

McMahon's Three Convictions

Linda McMahon is now the latest in a long line of deeply unqualified Secretaries of Education, and she has hit the ground running with her memo about the department's Final Destination Solution Mission. 

She's pro-disruption! Nobody is more qualified than parents to make educational decisions (so non-parents should not be allowed to serve on a school board?). She started out to be a teacher almost (which, tragically, puts her far ahead of many of her predecessors). Education shouldn't be plagued with corruption and unjust discrimination (but the department has already thrown out many complaints of what I guess was just discrimination). She is a font of privateer right wing talking points.

McMahon focuses on three convictions, which, if nothing else, may give a clue which of the administration's conflicting education goals (end federal meddling in education, and increase federal meddling in education) she is going to pursue. None of them are good news.

Parents are the primary decision makers in their children’s education.

Send education back to the states! Then the states can send it back to parents and voila-- government has sloughed off any involvement in or responsibility for public education.

We should not take seriously any parental rights declaration that does not include recognition and protection of students' rights. Both their rights to safety and their rights to make choices about their own lives. 

It's also worth noting that this "empowerment" of parents is never accompanied by sources of information to help inform parental choices, nor regulation to assure parents that what they encounter on the free market is actually sound. Kind of like "We will abolish the FDA so that consumers are free to select from among a panoply of products that may or may include some which are poisonous, but we're sure the market will sort that out."

Taxpayer-funded education should refocus on meaningful learning in math, reading, science, and history—not divisive DEI programs and gender ideology.

The list of Things To Focus On is, of course, missing many items (art, music, writing, the ever-expanding list of "practical" items like filling out taxes and changing tires, etc etc etc). The "divisive DEI programs and gender ideology" portion is meaningless enough to be adapted to whatever grievance MAGA has decided to be outraged by. 

Are schools meant to ignore diversity and pretend that all students are the same? If equity is bad, how does one propose that inequity be administered? If schools are opposed to inclusion, who is meant to be excluded, and how should that exclusion be managed? Serving the special needs of some students comes under DEI--should that be terminated? 

The department has attempted to clarify its anti-diversity directive
"Schools may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races," the letter reads. "For example, schools with programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race." The letter also clarified that identity-based observances like Black History Month are acceptable, as long as the events are open to all students.

Which comes awfully close to "you can't exclude white kids from anything." "Hostile environment" is a vague term that will depend entirely on how the folks in charge of enforcement care to interpret it. The language could certainly support a complaint about racism in a school, but the fact that the department has dropped a reported 10,000 complaints about disability access and sexual and racial harassment gives us a pretty good sense of which way the wind is blowing here.

"Gender ideology" is an even more mysterious term. As near as I can tell, "gender ideology" refers to anything that suggests that it's unremarkable that LGBTQ persons exist. 

Postsecondary education should be a path to a well-paying career aligned with workforce needs.

This administration is certainly not the first to want to apply return-on-investment analysis to higher education. The "aligned with workforce needs" is a popular standard for the business world; why train workers yourself if you can get post-high school institutions to create the pool of meat widgets you want (while getting the meat widgets themselves to pay for it). 

Nobody has yet figured out how to actually do this, and I don't imagine the current brain trust has any better ideas.

So what do we have here

Instead of dismantling the department and thereby ending its access to any levers of power, McMahon appears to be going with increasing the levels of micro-management by the feds in order to score some culture panic victories. 

"Final mission" tries to signal that they are absolutely going to dismantle the department just as soon as they clean up this culture panic stuff. However, the culture panic crowd is never done. I cannot imagine a universe in which McMahon says, "We have now wiped out all the terrible indoctrination and DEI/CRT/MOUSE in the education system, so we can shut down the department."

No, a culture panic movement is deeply in love with the problem, because the problem gives them license to do whatever they wish. To declare the problem solved is to give up the power they derive from continuously hammering the panic button. Like Betsy DeVos before her, McMahon may have been determined to dismantle the levers of power until she gets her hands on them and...well...maybe as long as it's for the right cause... Panic always craves power; I will put a small bet on the prediction that the department will not be tossed into the fires of Mount Doom any time soon. 

Thursday, February 27, 2025

Crypto-Education

I have put off trying to educate myself about cryptocurrency, but finally gave in, read a book, and golly bob howdy, if it isn't the same guys, the same grift, and the same bullshit as education privatization.


The book was Easy Money: Cryptocurrencym Casino Capitalism, and the Golden Age of Fraud, written by Ben McKenzie and Jacob Silverman, and if McKenzie's name sounds vaguely familiar, that's because you used to watch The OC on which he played Ryan. But before he was an actor, McKenzie graduated from the University of Virginia magna cum laude with a degree in economics and foreign affairs. Silverman is a journalist who covers tech, crypto and politics. 

The book is tied together by the narrative of McKenzie's growing interest and his concurrent growing sense that crypto was an emperor with no clothes, a burning building for which nobody was pulling the alarm. It's clear, compelling, and easy to understand even for those of us with no economics background. 

It is also, if you've been deep in the education debates, oddly familiar, sometimes in ways that I found illuminating. Familiar themes include--

Techbro awesomeness

The techbros driving the movement are absolutely certain that they Know How It Is, that they possess all the wisdom and know-how to engineer a complete replacement for the system already in place. People who stick up for that system are just showing that they aren't as smart as the bros. See also: Bill Gates on education. 

Ignorance of the past. 

If you're smarter than everyone, you don't have to listen to anyone, including people who know the history of the field you want to disrupt. The techbros driving the movement are sure they are pioneering bold new uncharted territory. "Behold! I have invented a new piece of technology! I shall call it [drum roll] The Wheel!!" 

But as the authors point out, the idea of launching a "decentralized" currency backed by nothing but charm and big brass balls has been tried in this country back in the mid-19th century. Spoiler alert: it did not work. See also: Mr. Lancaster's System by Adam Laats.

Frauds and scamsters

McKenzie and Silverman mention several times that having been scammed is seen as a regular and normal part of the crypto landscape. It is so pervasive that most of the folks they talked to freely talked about their own losses as if being scammed was a rite of passage. The underlying assumption-- that scammers and fraudsters are just part of the price of "freedom" and that it's up to the marketplace to do their homework and avoid getting fleeced. Fraud is how we know we're really free, I guess.  See also: complaints that school choice must not be hampered by regulation or oversight.

Lies about Decentralization and Power

Crypto is supposed to do away with the idea of money controlled by some central authority-- "government money," if you will. The power will be decentralized, declare crypto stans. Except that it isn't so much decentralized as simply moved. And it's not moved to the people who will supposedly benefit, but to a new, small set of people. And unlike a government, these people do not have to answer to anyone. They do, however, use the power and money they accumulate to make sure that elected officials and legislators stay friendly. 

But the notion that this disruption is somehow creating more freedom and opportunity for the ordinary citizen is a fiction. Instead, by removing a trusted third party, they create an unregulated marketplace where the real power is in the hands of a few rich folks, and the average person is a sheep ripe for shearing--and no recourse should such a shearing happen. Without a trusted third party in the mix, the rich and powerful are free to set rules that serve them. See also: the entire school voucher biz.

Some of the stories are just astounding, like the folks who lost millions of dollars because when market fluctuations became extreme and investors went to cash in, the exchange simply shut down so that they couldn't until the moment had passed. Yes, crypto shares certain folks' naive faith in tech. 

McKenzie and Silverman travel through many of the halls of crypto-land and talk to many of the major players (some of whom are remarkably willing to reveal to talk). In the end, you have to conclude that however bad, scammy, and fraudulent you thought crypto might be, it is probably way worse than that. And many of its worst features echo the school privatization movement. 

Crypto uses the language of known, trusted stuff-- it's "currency" and "coin"-- to get folks to offer trust to something that has no basis in anything other than its creators' will to make something out of thin air that can be used as a foundation for grift. Sure, there are some people involved in good faith, but the whole edifice is built on smoke and mirrors. 



Sunday, February 16, 2025

ICYMI: Cheap Chocolate Edition (2/16)

Is there any holiday more special that Cheap Chocolate Day, celebrated on February 15 and all days thereafter until stock is sold out? Right up there with Half Price Candy Day on November 1. Celebrate it with someone you love.

I had no intention of this weekly digest being a chronicle of medical adventures, but this week I managed to twist my slightly cranky knee into an ER visit, from which I returned with some lovely parting gifts of a brace, crutches, and some drugs (well, not gifts exactly). So it has been a slow week for my work here, and I promise even more typos than usual.

As I always do when I encounter the medical system, I try to imagine how awful it must be to try to navigate it without decent insurance or a good support network, and the sheer hardworking decency of the people on the ground. I have met grumpy doctors and disconnected bureaucrats in my years, but never once a bad nurse. It's hard to understand how such a great nation can be so bad at providing health care, except that it's not, especially at this moment when our tendency to wield self-sufficiency as its ugly flip side, the side that says I shouldn't have to worry about taking care of anyone else. 

At any rate, here's the reading list for the week.

This didn’t start with DOGE

Rachel Cohen at Vox confirms what you were already thinking-- if this all seems familiar, it's because DOGE is using the old anti-teacher playbook. 

I'm not sure I trust DOGE's numbers...

I have not always agreed with Chad Aldeman, but he has the wonky credentials to really break down what smells funny about the DOGE attack on the research wing of the Department of Education.

Virtual school officials used money for students on political donations instead, prosecutors say

And that's only the half of it. Big time grift and fraud from an Indiana cyber charter. Reported by Amelia Pak-Harvey.

Linda McMahon Wrestles With Tough Question Of Whether Black History Is Even Legal Now

Doctor Zoom at Wonkette looks at the many ways McMahon tried to avoid openly acknowledging the meaning of Trump's anti-DEI decrees.


The only thing that needs to be read about that show. Easier to absorb now that all the whining is over. Jose Luis Vilson is on the case.

Cold As Ice: Update #2

Gregory Sampson with more information about the many ways Florida districts are planning to fail their students.

Charter schools failed Indy. Public education is a service, not a market.

In the Indy Star, advocate and parent Anderson York explains, again, why free market chartering does not actually help.

A state lawmaker wants to stop new cyber charters from entering Pennsylvania. Here's why.

In Pennsylvania, we need more cyber charters like we need another famous groundhog, and once again, a lawmaker is trying to do something about it. Bethany Rodgers has the story for GoErie.

Despite Breakdowns in Two States, ESA Provider Student First Seeks to Expand

Students First has done a lousy job of managing voucher money in two states already, so clearly it should expand operations. Linda Jacobson has the story in The74.

Unsustainable Voucher Costs Threaten Passage of Ohio’s New Public School Funding Formula

Jan Resseger continues to follow political shenanigans in Ohio, where privateers insist that there just isn't money for public schools, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty for vouchers. Kind of like when your kids say they're too full to finish supper, but have plenty of room for ice cream.

They trained on diversity under Trump. Now he’s punishing them for it.

Laura Meckler covers the story of the Ed Department folks who did what they were told, and are now being told that was a fireable offense.

Who is in Favor of Authoritarianism? Are Schools Authoritarian?

Nancy Flanagan on the blessings of liberty and being the land of the free and home of the brave.

What is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?

Steve Nuzum has a clear and simple explanation of what this mess is about.

What Does the U.S. Department of Education Do? Enforcing Laws to Protect Students

Nancy Bailey with a good explainer of what the department actually does when it comes to protecting the rights of students.


Jessica Winter at The New Yorker takes a really good look at what is at stake for students with special needs. 

The Way You Do Anything, Is The Way You Do Everything

Nobody is providing better ongoing coverage of a district's reaction to a school shooting than TC Weber, and while his district may not be yours, you will recognize much of what goes on (right down to the adults really wishing that the student board representatives would shut up and sit down).


Privateers so badly want computer tutoring to be a thing because it would be so cheap and let them shut schools for the poors and put a lot of teachers out of work. Thomas Ultican describes yet another attempt to try to make it all happen.

Valentine’s Day Reflection: Love, Justice, and the Urgency of Equity in Education

Julian Vasquez Heilig connects the dots between education, activism, and love.

At Forbes.com, I wrote one of those rare posts that has blown up, covering the 17-state attempt to end some protections for students with special needs (and lie about it). 

Join me on the newsletter side and all of this various bloggery can just magically appear in your in box. And it will always be free.