Zuck's Ed Tech Baby Goes With A Whimper

A new chapter in the long story of Summit Learning.

Summit Schools were an early entry (2003) into the world of charters, with founder Diane Tavenner trying to do personalized learning the low tech way. Tavenner was reportedly a former teacher, asst. principal and a graduate of the Broad Faux Academy of Superintendenty Stuff: she served as the board chair for the California Charter Schools Association, a board that includes Joe Williams, head of DFER as a member). 

Mark Zuckerberg, fresh off a disastrous attempt to finance an overhaul of New Jersey schools,  ran across the Bay area school in 2014 and decided that he would give it not just an infusion of cash, but an infusion of technology. Including engineering support to "make this better." Summit became one of Zuckerberg's pet projects, and it was also beloved by that other well-connected super-rich education amateur, Bill Gates, who has some of his Top People promoting hell out of it.

Summit handed off its "education. in a box" program to all sorts of schools (about 400 at its peak) and it was yet another experimennt in large scale education-via-screen. 

Many folks did not love it. . Take a look at some of the comments in this piece "The Inherent Racism of Summit 'Public' (Charter) School." And many schools have backed away from the Mass Customized Learning Program (a term that deserves a place on the oxymoron shelf right next to Jumbo Shrimp and Peacekeeper Missiles).

Indiana, Pennsylvania schools tried to quietly implement Summit programming, and parents began to squawk almost immediately. After just one month

parents began telling the school board that their kids were not adjusting to the new learning style, that they found questionable and objectionable material in the recommended online resources in their classes, and that their children were spending too much time in front of computer screens

NY Magazine just profiled Cheshire, Connecticut, another town that fought back when the mass customized learning program came to town (or rather, the town came to them, since the Summit model involves logging on to the Summit website). The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative had paid for the 130 Chromebooks needed, but once again, reality got in the way of CZI dreams.

Students rarely met with teachers, but instead had lots of screen time with a computer program that was reportedly easy to trick (just skip the lessons and go straight to the tests). The program still has glitches, including questions that cannot be answered correctly (maybe some nerdy programmer decided Summit needed its own Kobayashi Maru?) And there's the problem of the open-sourced playlists themselves:

Nothing about the platform said Silicon Valley more than the open-source approach to the “playlists.” Teachers were encouraged to customize them, to add and subtract — and Cheshire’s teachers were working on this, Superintendent Jeff Solan said in an email — but the base material was often just a bunch of links, to sites ranging from Kids Encyclopedia to SparkNotes to the BBC. I interviewed several educators who were involved in developing the platform in 2014, and when I mentioned this to one, he agreed they were “shoddy.” “We knew it,” he said. They were in such a hurry, he said, “we were just throwing things in there, that, at least from a Google search, looked reputable.”

Yikes. It's almost as if the actual education piece is secondary to some other part of the operation. I wonder what that could be...

And there was the question of data. Summit is clear about the 18 partners it shares its data with, and subjects itself to its own strong privacy agreements in addition to the legal protections around student data already in place, but parents and other locals were nonetheless concerned. “The Chromebooks were free. Nothing’s free. There’s always a reason,” said Mary Burnham, a retired educator who was part of the campaign against Summit. “If somebody’s giving you something free, chances are, they want something back, or they’re already getting something from it. As best I can tell, with Summit, it’s data.

Like the equally tech-heavy and success-light Altschool, Summit seemed to be one part market research and one part experiment on human lab rats, with the goal of finding proof of concept for computer-managed education. But mostly Altschool lost truckloads of money, and it eventually faded away into various other products and companies (Altitude Learning was one piece, apparently part of Guidepost Learning, another edu-prenuer undertaking that has since gone bankrupt). 

Traction was not happening for Summit, either. Chalkbeat found that 1 in 4 schools dropped the program by the 2018-19 school year.

In 2018, Summit spun the digital program off into a non-profit entity whose initial four-person board included Diane Tavenner, Summit founder; Priscilla Chan; and Peggy Alford, the CFO for CZI.It seemed suspiciously like a subsidiary of the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative. The program was designed to follow what has now become the familiar model-- students getting their education from a compter-manab=ged algorithm while (low-cost) "coaches" provided some human oversight in the room. Maybe not so much oversight as "accountability sinks," because somebody has to be responsible when things go south. But Summit even went so far as to create its own special farm for training "facilitators."

The National Education Policy Center took a look at Summit's learning system, and found that it was a lot more hat than cowboy (and it was also extraordinarily reluctant to submit to any examination of their work or results). 

So in 2023, CZI (not really pretending it hadn't swallowed Summit whole) spun Summit off again, this time an outfit called Gradient, which the CZI blog said "we can help these important research-based resources more consistently reach students and educators, by focusing on coherence for educators." "Consistency" and "coherence" come up a lot in the history of Summit, because Zuck and his friends repeatedly concluded that the reason the computer-managed curriculum in a box wasn't working better and winning hearts and minds was that teachers were not implementing it faithfully enough. Damned mat widgets.

Gradient was yet another company whose promised whiz-bangery invokes the the "whole student" and a "unified learning platform," and while it can be hard to see through the smokey argle bargle, it sure looks like Trascend also wants to make computer-managed software-delivered education a thing. With a "dedicated coach." 

Gradient was going to have things chugging along by the 2024-2025 school year, but in Februarty 2026, Gradient announced its "next chapter,"

Expanding the scale and impact of this work is more important than ever. After much deliberation with our board, we are pleased to share that the future of the Gradient Learning program will move to a new home at Transcend, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting schools and systems to create extraordinary experiences and outcomes for all students. Transcend brings the expertise to take our program to the next level, as well as the ability to amplify a community of education innovators working for lasting change.

Transcend is about "model sharing" and "community innovation." They want to "reimagine educator roles" and their Leaps toward Extraordinary Learning for All is just the same old "school hasn't changed in a century" and educatyion should be relevant and a lot of nice words about what education should be like that nobody should disagree with, given that they offer nothing in the way of specific techniques that teachers should use. They jpin. a whole long line of edu-prenuers who offer pretty ideals about what education should be like without addressing any of the nuts and bolt specifics, which is where teachers live and do their work. Agency! High expectations! Rigor! Not one size fiots all! I have no evidence, but it is entirely possible that Transcend is actually headquarterd on a farm upstate, where tired old reform mcliches can run and play and are definitely not euthanized.

There is a certain symmetry to this story, however. I didn't follow up on the various team members of Transcend, so who knows-- maybe none of them were in Teach for America. The board is largely investment and business types. The CEO is Aylon Samouha, whose previous jobs include  Chief Schools Officer at Rocketship Education and several years as a Senior Vice President at Teach For America, and I feel compelled to note, lists jazz guitar as one of his pursuits, so God bless him for that.

But the kicker. The board has two lifetime members. One is Stacey Childress, former CEO of New Schools Venture Fund, and the other is Diane Tavenner, currently listed as CEO and Co-founder of her latest ventures, Futre.me.

These are the stories I think of every time some reformbro tries to argue that in the private sector, when you fail there are consequences-- not like in public education. Maybe. But it sure seems that in the private sector, the invisible hand doesn't cut failure loose so much as it just shuffles it around, to kick back and forth from one doomed enterprise to another. Will the ghost of Summit ever be laid to final rest? It may take decades to find out. 

Netflix Chief Ready To Help DFER Fix Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FL: Replacing Immigrants With Children

This is not actually a new story, but recent comments by Florida's attorney general have reminded us that for some folks, the solution to sticking all the immigrant labor in detention centers is to fill the empty labor market with teenagers.

Many states have been stripping child labor protections in the past few years. Much of the push has been coming from employers, part of a general desire not to have to follow stupid rules. Also, teen employees are cheap and disinclined to start unions or complain about lousy conditions.

We know that businesses are pushing much of this, even writing bills, but it turns out that there's a big fat dark money lobbying group that is "helping out" in many states.

Meet the Foundation for Government Accountability.

FGA was founded in 2011 by CEO Tarren Bragdon, who himself highlights a quote that gives us a good idea of who he is:

I greatly value the ability to provide for my wife and children and want more Americans to experience the freedom that work brings. I founded FGA to pursue good policy solutions that will free millions from government dependency and open the doors for them to chase their own American Dream.

I've written a whole post about this guy, who took his show from Maine to Florida, where he helped write some legislation to give teens the freedom to be more easily exploited by employers. Yay.

It's been almost a year since Governor Ron DeSantis dropped this nugget when chatting with Border Czar Ton Homan

“Why do we say we need to import foreigners, even import them illegally, when you know, teenagers used to work at these resorts, college students should be able to do this stuff,” DeSantis said last week at a panel discussion with border czar Tom Homan, as first reported by the Tampa Bay Times.

So here comes Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to add his two cents. Uthmeier was DeSantis's chief of staff as well as the guy who ran the failed presidential campaign of his boss. When appointed to the post a year ago, Uthmeier barked

We will not stand idly by as the left tries to infiltrate our institutions and use the court system to indoctrinate our kids. We will fight the activists that try to weaken our duly enacted laws, that try to challenge our constitutional order and try to harm the unborn.

This week, when the Wall Street Journal, reported that Florida employers are having a hard time filling jobs legally, Uthmeier got to go on Fox and respond. We're cranking out all sorts of meat widgets, he proudly more or less declared. And also "getting people into the workforce earlier." 

We passed legislation last year to help high school students get their hands dirty and get on job sites more quickly.

Uthmeier, it should be noted, is not getting his own hands dirty. Instead, he has landed a gig at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he will rake in $100,000 a year for teaching two hours a week. He also proposed constructing "Alligator Alcatraz," but maybe that wasn't so much a human rights abomination -- maybe he was just trying to create job opportunities for teens in concentration camp construction. He was also part of that business of shipping migrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard. 

Maybe he just has different ideas about what getting your hands dirty actually means.

This represents one more step toward a multi-tier education system, a system where some folks get a full and rounded education and others, destined for a life as meat widgets, need only get enough education to make them useful to the employers who will start extracting labor from them as soon as possible. It's not a future I favor.

Are there students who are going to lead happy, useful lives as blue collar workers? Absolutely (I taught hundreds of them). But two things should be true-- 1) blue collar workers benefit from a well-rounded life-enhancing education just as much as everyone else, and 2) their path is to be chosen by them and not forced on them by policy makers. Certainly not as a way to patch over problems created by self-kneecapping xenophobic policies.

WV: Removing Accountability From Private Schools

West Virginia passed a law to allow taxpayer-funded school vouchers in 2021, and they've been tweaking it ever since. They opened it up to more and more students. Consequently, the costs of the program are ballooning: when the law was passed, supporters declared it would cost just $23 million in its first year, and now the estimate for the coming school year is $245 to $315 million. 

With that kind of money on the line, you'd think that the state might want to put some accountability and oversight rules in place. You know-- so the taxpayers know what they're getting for their millions of dollars.

But you would be backwards. Instead, the legislature is considering a bill to reduce accountability for private and religious schools.

SB 216, the Restoring Private Schools Act of 2026, is short and simple. It consists of the current accountability rules for private, parochial or church schools, or schools of a religious order-- with a whole lot of rules crossed out.

What are some of the rules that the legislation proposes to eliminate for private and religious schools? Here's the list of rules slated for erasure:

* The requirement for a minimum number of hours of instruction.

* The requirement to maintain attendance and disease immunization records for each enrolled student.

* The requirement to provide, upon request of county superintendent, a list of the names and addresses of all students in the school between ages 7 and 16.

* The requirement to annually administer a nationally normed standardized test in the same grades as required for public schools. Ditto the requirement to assess the progress of students with special needs.

* Since there's no test requirement, there is also no requirement to provide testing data to parents and the state department of education.

* The requirement to establish curriculum objectives, "the attainment of which will enable students to develop the potential for becoming literate citizens." Scrap also the requirement for an instructional program to meet that goal. 

So under this bill, private schools would not have to have a plan for educating students, would not have to spend a minimum amount of time trying to educate students, and would not have to provide the state with any evidence that they are actually educating students.

The bill does add one bit of new language:

As autonomous entities free of governmental oversight of instruction, private, parochial, or church, schools may implement such measures for instruction and assessment of pupils as leadership of such schools may deem appropriate.

In other words, private religious schools accepting taxpayer-funded vouchers may do whatever the hell they want.  

The bill is sponsored by Senator Craig Hart. Hart calls himself a school teacher, and is mentioned as an agriculture/FFA teacher, though I could find no evidence of where he teaches. He was elected in 2024 after running as a hardcore MAGA. He has pushed for requiring Bibles in school, among other MAGA causes. 

Said Eric Kerns, superintendent of Faith Christian Academy, “It just gives private schools a lot more flexibility in what they would be able to do as far as assessment and attendance and school days. Our accountability is that if people aren’t satisfied with the education they’re receiving, then they go to another private school or back to the public school or they homeschool.” Also known as "No accountability at all." A school is not a taco truck.

As reported by Amelia Ferrell Knisely at West Virginia Watch, at least one legislator tried to put some accountability back in the bill. GOP Sen. Charles Clements tried to put back a nationally-recognized testing requirement and share results with parents. Said Clements

I want to see private schools survive, but I think we have to have guardrails of some sort. There’s a lot of money around, and it’s a way for people to come in and not produce a product we need … I think it just leaves the door open for problems.

Exactly. And his amendment was rejected. The School Choice Committee chair said the school could still use a real test if they wanted to, but the bill would allow more flexibility to choose newer test options; I'm guessing someone is pulling for the Classical Learning Test, the conservative unwoke anti-SAT test. 

Democrat Mike Woelfel tried to put the immunization record back; that was rejected, too.

Look, the Big Standardized Test is a terrible measure of educational quality, and it should be canceled for everyone. But for years the choice crowd promised that once choice was opened up, we'd get a market driven by hard data. Then it turned out that the "hard data" showed that voucher systems were far worse than public schools, and the solution has not been to make the voucher system work better, but to silence any data that reveals a voucher system failure.

The goal is not higher quality education. The goal is public tax dollars for private religious schools-- but only if the private religious schools can remain free of regulation, oversight, or any restrictions that get in the way of their power to discriminate freely against whoever they wish to discriminate against. 

This is not about choice. It's about taxpayer subsidies for private religious schools, and it's about making sure those schools aren't accountable to anyone for how they use that money. It's another iteration of the same argument we've heard across the culture--that the First Amendment should apply because I am not free to fully exercise my religion unless I can unreservedly discriminate against anyone I choose and unless I get taxpayer funding to do it. 

We've been told repeatedly that the school choice bargain is a trade off-- the schools get autonomy in exchange for accountability, but that surely isn't what's being proposed here. If West Virginia is going to throw a mountain of taxpayer money at private schools, those schools should be held accountable. This bill promises the opposite; may it die a well-deserved death. 

American Federation for Children Ready To Cash In On Federal Vouchers

States continue to line up for the new federal school vouchers program, and Betsy DeVos's American Federation for Children is ready to make the best of it.

The vouchers are a feature of the Trump's Big Beautiful Bill; they're a tax credit scholarship set up where you can contribute to a scholarship [sic] grant organization (SGO) that manages the voucher money, and in return you get to stiff Uncle Sam for 100% of what you contributed. It's a dollar for dollar tax credit; there is no more generous tax dodge anywhere in the tax code.

Individual taxpayers can only donate up to $1,700, which will make racking up the big bucks a challenge in some states. But AFC thinks they've found a way around that.

AFC, you will recall, is a right-wing organization, well-connected to the DeVos family (Betsy had to quit being the chief of AFC in order to take the education secretary gig). They pushed hard for school privatization via "choice" for many, many years. Current CEO is Tommy Schultz, who has been with AFC for almost a decade.

Schultz went on the David Webb Show (Webb is a right wing talking head) to explain what AFC has in mind.

Webb notes that "as a scholarship granting organization" AFC is putting "real muscle" here.

Schultz explains the "transformational" tax credit scholarship bill allows people to donate up to $1,700 to a scholarship organization and get a "dollar for dollar tax credit." If you owe the IRS $2,000 in taxes, he explains, just give $1,700 to a scholarship organization and only owe the feds $300. Which is true, but doesn't leave any more money in your hands than you were going to have just paying your taxes. Schultz is pitching that as a reduction of your tax liability. This is not a surprise-- this will be and has often been the pitch, because it's more appealing than "You can personally add to the government's deficit." 

That will "free up billions of dollars," Schultz says. Frees from what? Being captured by the feds, I guess. He's going to keep pushing the notion that this will give students "access to a better education," which is the central lie of the whole program. Because first, there is no reason to believe that vouchers lead to better education, and lots of reasons to believe that they don't. Second, vouchers systems make sure that private schools retain the right to discriminate against LGBTQ persons, students with the "wrong" religious faith, students who have academic issues, students with special needs, and any students the school just doesn't want to accept for whatever reason. Laws are written to deliberately preserve that power to discriminate. 

Schultz notes that "the beauty and elegance" of this new voucher dodge is that it's a change to the tax code, and not, say, a piece of education policy with oversight and accountability attached. "There won't be any nefarious Department of Education strings attached to it." No accountability. No oversight. No rules. 

"We are very much invested in making sure that millions of kids can get access to the best education possible..." says Schultz, which, again, is baloney, because if that were the actual goal, one would call for vouchers big enough to cover tuition costs or require voucherfied schools to accept all students or demand oversight and accountability to insure that participating private schools were, in fact, best.

Oh, and tutoring, too, Schultz adds, because choicers are trying hard to sell the possibility that these federal voucher funds might be used for tutoring. Because if people who have no intention of moving their kids out of public schools can be convinced that they will gain something from this program, maybe that will broaden support for it.

Why is AFC getting into this. Schultz says they really want to scale the fundraising that this will unleash. "Our scholarship entity will be acting as a platform for other scholarship groups that they can tap into." A small, state-based SGO might be able to scrape together a few million in $1,700 increments, but AFC thinks they can sweeten that pot considerably, first by throwing $10 million into a "donor awareness, and marketing and acquisition campaign" to help scale the program "all across the country."

What does that even mean? Will this giant SGO focus on fundraising for smaller SGOs, and will that result in AFC having a controlling interest in the voucher program for many states? Will AFC have unlimited freedom to contribute as much as they want to state programs? Schultz doesn't explain more; AFC press materials indicate a partnership with Odyssey which is a company that...well...is

the only provider in the country that offers an automated, end-to-end school choice platform. Our best-in-class technology connects families with school choice programs that provide funding for school tuition and eligible educational resources that align with the unique talents, gifts, and needs of each student.

Everyone uses the word "scale" a lot. Webb says, "Again, real skin in the game" and I'm not sure whose skin in which game he means or who has been putting fake skin in there.

Webb talks about "guardrails against abuse." He swears he's a school choice OG, but there are good and bad charters and magnets and ideological, too; "it's not just about private and public." There isn't really a question here, but Schultz takes a pause and leaps in.

What this program, like state programs before it, is going to do is put "funds in the hands of families" and "really, the most accountable way to implement any policy at the state or federal level when it comes to education is to not have the bureaucrats involved." This is just dumb. The notion that parental response will be sufficient to keep private and charter schools from fraud and mischief and general incompetence has already been disproven many many many many times. Private and charter schools only have to snooker a small slice of the market in any given year, so losing "customers" is no big deal-- certainly not a motivator for higher quality. But more importantly, if we depend on parents saying, "Well, that year was a bust. We're not going back," then we are throwing away a valuable year of a child's education so that market forces can magically take effect.

I don't know if Schultz is one of those people with a childlike belief in a magical invisible hand of the market, or if he's just blowing smoke because he's one of those folks who thinks business titans shouldn't have to answer to anyone, including government. Either way, his assertion is baloney.

But he will double down. When you see parents choosing the best schools for their sons and daughter, he argues, you really see a flourishing marketplace, including better test scores and lower incidences of fraud (like the bad stuff that has crippled our public education system for 30 or 40 years, he adds). He does not offer a specific example of this magic, because no such example exists. But he will rant about the public system, rail about low test scores (schools with no students proficient, he says, ignoring what "proficient" means). He cites Florida, Ohio, and Indiana as places with "booming" school choice ecosystems going on and it's true they have lots of unregulated unaccountable choice in those states, but nothing to suggest that it's helping education at all (also, bringing up Ohio in the context of fraud-free education is a bold choice). 

The claims just keep piling up. Taxpayers are saving money. Kids are getting better educational outcome with all the research. These are not true statements. Marketplace competition makes things better, because parents can vote with their feet. Feet-based voting does not help anything, and smart market-loving economists like Douglas Harris have explained why the free market does not fit with education. 

But Schultz is going to roll right through the usual talking points. These new vouchers will really help the schools, like the Catholic schools, that are trying to help lower and middle class families. He did make a mistake there and talking about helping schools instead of helping kids, but that really is one of the points of choice-- to funnel public taxpayer dollars to private schools. And we already know, in state after state, that vouchers are mostly serving well-off families whose kids were already in private, mostly religious schools. The "We'll save the poor kids" story is inspiring-- it's just not reality.

Webb wants us to remember that anyone can donate to the federal voucher program, not just parents. Schultz agrees. Call your tax professional and learn how you can get in on this. There will be other national SGOs besides AFC (count on it). "Every single American can become a philanthropist," Schultz says. "By giving us their money," he does not add. "This can bring billions of dollars off the sidelines," he says for about the third time, so we should note that this money was not going to sit on the sidelines, but was going to help the federal government pay its bills. 

By the way, we spend a lot of money on education and the test scores didn't go up, so we need to send money to unaccountable unregulated schools to make a better future for America. "We are the best, most free, most prosperous nation in the world," Schultz says, but if we have a mediocre education system, then boo. How we got to be the best nation in the world with that mediocre education system is a mystery he does not address. Also unaddressed-- how SGOs typically get a 5% to 10% cut of the money they handle. 

Paper: AI Destroys Institutions

From its title-- "How AI Destroys Institutions"-- this draft essay pulls no punches. It's heavily researched (166 footnotes) and plain in its language. I'm going to hit the highlights here, but I hope you'll be motivated to go read the entire work yourself.

The essay is from two Boston University law professors. Woodrow Hartzog focuses on privacy and technology law; Jessica Silbey teaches and writes about intellectual property and technology law (she also has a PhD in comparative literature--yay, humanities). Their forty-page draft essay breaks down neatly into sections. Let's go.

Institutions are society's superheroes

When we use the term “institutions,” we mean the commonly circulating norms and values covering a recognizable field of human action, such as medicine or education. Institutions form the invisible but essential backbone of social life through their familiar yet iterative and adaptable routines across wide populations in space and time.

These are really important because these "bundles of normative commitments and conventions" help to reduce "uncertainty while promoting human cooperation and efficacy of mission." In other words, they keep things flowing smoothly, particularly for people involved in moving a certain mission forward. 

However, they note, "People both inside and outside an institution must believe in its mission and competency for it to remain durable and sustain legitimacy." Institutions also rely on expertise which helps because it "values and promotes competence, innovativeness, and trustworthiness."

So, institutions really matter, and they depend on certain factors. And here our trouble begins.

The destructive affordances of AI

Hartzog and Silbey explain that we'll be using AI to mean main generative AI systems (chatbots), predictive AI (facial recognition), and automated decision AI (content moderation). They can tempt institution folks by promising to be both fast and correct.

So surface-level use cases for AI in institutions exist. But digging deeper, things quickly fall apart. We are a long way from the ideal conditions to implement accountability guardrails for AI. Even well-intentioned information, technology rules, and protective frameworks are often watered down, corrupted, and distorted in environments where people face powerful incentives to make money or simply get the job done as fast as possible.

Perhaps if human nature were a little less vulnerable to the siren’s call of shortcuts, then AI could achieve the potential its creators envisioned for it. But that is not the world we live in. Short-term political and financial incentives amplify the worst aspects of AI systems, including domination of human will, abrogation of accountability, delegation of responsibility, and obfuscation of knowledge and control.

But despite the seductive lure of AI, the authors point out that it "requires the pillaging of personal data and expression, and facilitates the displacement of mental and physical labor." But mostly it reproduces existing patterns, amplifies biases, and just generally pumps harmful slop into the information ecosystem, all while pretending to be both authoritative and objective.

And its faux-conscious, declarative, and confident prose hides normative judgments behind a Wizard-of-Oz-esque curtain that masks engineered calculations, all the while accelerating the reduction of the human experience to what can be quantified or expressed in a function statement.

What we end up with is the "outsourcing of human thought and relationships to algorithmic outputs." And that means that AI does some serious damage in three main ways.

First, AI undermines expertise

First, AI systems undermine and degrade institutional expertise. Because AI gives the illusion of accuracy and reliability, it encourages cognitive offloading and skill atrophy, and frustrates back-end labor required to repair AI’s mistakes and “hallucinations.”

This doesn't just substitute unreliable bot answers for the work of human experts; it also "denies the displaced person the ability to hone and refine their skills." We get this in education; if you have someone or something do your assignment for you, you don't develop the skills that would have come from doing the work yourself. Same thing in the workplace. Would you rather have a nurse who can say "I have seen this kind of problem a hundred times" or one who can say "I have referred this kind of problem to a medibot a hundred time."

Hartzog and Silbey also remind us that AI can only look backwards; they are bound by pre-existing information. As Arvind Naryann and Sayash Kapoor point out in the AI Snake Oil, predictive AI won't work because the only way it can make good predictions is if nothing else changes. AI is your mother explaining to you how to get a job in today's market based on how she got her job thirty years ago, as if conditions have not changed since then.

AI may appear "hyper-competent," but the authors correctly point out that hallucinations are not a bug, but an inevitable feature of how these systems are designed. Remember, the "stochastic" in "stochastic parrot" means "randomly determined," a guess. When the guesses are correct, the humans in the institution lose skill and value; when the guess is wrong, the institution has to compensate for that failure,

AI short-circuits decisionmaking

Important moral decisions get sloughed off to AI, justified by the notion that they are somehow objective and efficient and therefor not involved in making any moral choices.

To start, the decision to implement an AI system in an institution in any significant way is not just about efficiency. Technologies have a way of obscuring the fact that moral choices that should be made by humans have been outsourced to machines.

When your insurance company uses AI to approve or deny your claim, it is making a moral choice, and furthermore, it's making that choice based on rules that are hidden inside the black box of AI. Then, the authors note, "When AI systems obscure the rules of institutions, the legitimacy of those rules degrades." 

The authors further argue that AI is incapable of "a willingness to learn, engage, critique, and express yourself even though you are vulnerable or might be wrong." Humans can stretch beyond what is known, make big jumps or wide connections. Those kinds of creative leaps are beyond AI, which gives us more of what is already out there. 

The authors also argue that AI cannot challenge the status quo "because its voice has no weight." In other words, humans might speak up, confront management, or even resign loudly in protest, creating pressure for the institution to be better. Raise your hand if you think that this is exactly why some leaders think AI employees are an awesome idea. But the authors argue that "moral courage and insight" are "necessary for institutions to adapt and survive." One would hope.

AI isolates humans

Finally, AI systems isolate people by displacing opportunities for human connection and interpersonal growth. This deprives institutions of the necessary solidarity and space required for good faith debate and adaptability in light of constantly changing circumstances. AI displaces and degrades human-to-human relationships and—through its individualized engagement and sycophancy— erodes our capacity for reflection about and empathy towards other and different humans.

If an institution isn't working out roles and the rules that guide the roles, the rules that make the institution function start to waste away. Then "there is only institutional chaos or the rule of the powerful." 

This strikes me as a drawback that people are really blind to. The consistent assumption in every single plan to have students taught by an AI bot is the assumption that those students will react to the bot as they would to a human teacher, that they will behave as if a real live teacher is in the room, and not, instead, simply throw out the rules about what it means to be a student in a classroom.

The institutions on AI's death row

Hartzog and Silbey offer DOGE as a prime example of an institution that rotted from AI dependence, but they see many areas that are susceptible.

For instance, if the rule of law is handed to AI, we've got trouble. The idea of enforcing rules is that enforcement makes the rules visible and therefor easier for everyone to follow. But when the rules are obscured or unclear or simply hidden in the black box of AI, nobody knows what the rules are or what we are supposed to do. 

Imagine, they suggest, you get a notice that the IRS AI has determined that you owe $100,000 in back taxes. Nobody can tell you why, exactly, but they assume that the efficient and unbiased AI must have it right. Or a judge who hits you with a fine far above the recommended range, based on AI recommendation. Again, without explanation, but with the assumption of accuracy.

I'm imagining an AI that grades your student essay, but can't answer any of your questions about why you got that particular grade. 

It's all much like having someone in charge of government who sets rules based on his own personal whims and quirks from day to day and offers no explanation except that it's what he wants and he will use power to force compliance. Imagine how much that would suck. AI is also an authoritarian bully, except that its mechanized nature allows folks to pretend that its rule is unbiased and accurate. 

Hartzog and Silbey unsurprisingly also see trouble for higher education. AI taking over the cognitive load needed for learning. AI producing mediocre and homogenized content. AI shifting the questions researchers ask "from qualitative mysteries to quantifiable puzzles." If your main tool is an AI hammer, you are going to look for only nails that it will work on. 

And then there's trust, emerging more and more as an AI issue in education. Can you trust your students' work? Can they trust yours as a teacher? And what does all this do to the human connections needed for education to work? More distrust means more vulnerability to outside authorities trying to control the institution.

Then there's journalism...

As AI slop, the cheap, automatic, and thoughtless content made possible by AI, contaminates our public discourse and companies jam AI features into all possible screens, few institutions are more vital to preserve than the free press.

Too much slop and junk, particularly when it devalues expertise and knowledge, leads to a "scarcity of attention" and a lessened ability to respond to misinformation and disinformation. Everyone trying to do journalism of any sort knows the problem-- how do you get anyone to actually pay attention to what you have to say. We suffer from a collective thirteenth clown problem-- if there are twelve clowns on stage frolicking about, you can jump on stage and start reciting Shakespeare, but to the audience, you'll just be the thirteenth clown.

 Plus, the generation of mountains of slop means that AI is both generating and feeding on slop, and slop made out of slop is--well, not good. 

Journalism is defined by its adaptive, responsive dialogue in the face of shifting social, political, and economic events and by its sensitivity to power. But AI systems are not adaptive in a way that is responsive to human complexity, and they are agnostic to power. AI systems are pattern matchers; they cannot discern or produce “news.” 

Democracy and civic life 

Hartzog and Silbey pull out Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, a standard on my list of books everyone should read. 

One key concept necessary for a society to function is the idea of “generalized reciprocity: I’ll do this for you without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road.” Putnam wrote, “[a] society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society. . . . Trustworthiness lubricates social life.” As people become isolated and withdraw from public life, trust disappears, and social capital along with it. 

If we continue to embrace AI unabated, social capital and norms of reciprocity will abate, and our center—democracy and civil life—will not hold. Because AI systems undermine expertise, short-circuit decision-making, and isolate humans, they are the perfect machines to destroy social capital.

There is an irony in the AI industry's attempt to solve the "loneliness crisis" by offering chatbot companions-- which is looking more and more like a very bad idea. Nor does it seem helpful for society if everyone sits at home and has AI agents handle everything from shopping to email correspondence. Working stuff out with other humans requires social capital, and your handy AI agent cannot do that for you. And again-- every scenario in which an AI agent replaces a human assumes that the transaction will go on as if it still involved a human. You'll use AI to answer emails and, the assumption goes, people will respond to those emails as they would had you written them yourself and not, say, dismiss and ignore them because they did not come from a human. Meanwhile, how does one build empathy and reciprocity when two AIs are talking back and forth on your behalf?

The section ends with a reporting about the techbro dream of a world in which AI runs everything (and they run AI), a new brand of technofacsism. They quote Jill Lepore's NYT story from last fall:

More recently, Mr. Altman, for his part, pondered the idea of replacing a human president of the United States with an A.I. president. “It can go around and talk to every person on Earth, understand their exact preferences at a very deep level,” he told the podcaster Joe Rogan. “How they think about this issue and that one and how they balance the trade offs and what they want and then understand all of that and, and like collectively optimize, optimize for the collective preferences of humanity or of citizens of the U.S. That’s awesome.” Is that awesome? Replacing democratic elections with machines owned by corporations that operate by rules over which the people have no say? Isn’t that, in fact, tyranny?

Well, it's not tyranny from Altman's point of view. It's just him living with absolute freedom from anything that would impede his will or that would involve him actually dealing with meat widgets. Meanwhile, Oracle is shopping around AI to help run your local municipal government

So, this paper

It's not a pretty or encouraging picture, but it is a thorough one and a compelling articulation of the argument against indiscriminate AI use in our institutions. I'm not sure how many people are really listening, but I recommend the essay as a worthwhile read. You can get to it here. 

 

Authors Sue NVIDIA Over AI Theft

AI companies are knowingly using pirated copies of published works to train their bots, according to a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California. Five authors have filed a copyright lawsuit against NVIDIA, a major tech company in Santa Clara, California. 

You may remember NVIDIA as the folks who made your computer video gaming run smoothly, but they are in the AI biz these days, including Large Language Models, more commonly known as chatbots. They're doing okay. In 2023, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk were among a group of tech overlords who met NVIDIA's chief for what Ellison described as "an hour of sushi and begging" to get a larger allocation of the company's H100 GPU. In March of 2024, they became the third company in U.S. history to reach market capitalization of $2 trillion-with-a-T.

Lined up against them are Abdi Nazemian (Like a Love Story), Brian Keene (Ghost Walk), Stewart O'Nan (Last Night at the Lobster), Andres Dubus III (The Garden of Last Days), and Susan Orlean (The Orchid Thief). I have no read any of their stuff, but it is apparent many people have, though I don't think they are collectively worth $2 trillion.

I have learned a lot reading this lawsuit. For one thing, there are things called "shadow libraries" aka "pirate libraries." (I didn't know about them, but Wikipedia does.) It should come as no surprise that just as the digital world makes pirated copies of music and movies available, it also provides free access to print media. Books, ebooks, and scholarly media (those journal articles that are behind a really expensive paywall). 

In particular, the lawsuit points to Anna's Archive, which is apparently the big name in pirated text these days. (I'm not going to link to it-- if you want to mess with that kind of theft, you'll have to find it on your own.) Pirate libraries are composed by violating the copyright of the various collected works. 

So here's the story the lawsuit tells. In August 2023, NVIDIA approached legitimate publishers in an attempt to license mountains of text in order to train their chatbot.

But on information and belief, NVIDIA could not secure this fast access to the huge quantity of books it needed through publishers. As one book publisher told NVIDIA, it was “ not in a position to engage directly just yet but will be in touch.” In 2023, NVIDIA had “chatted with multiple publishers . . . but none [] wanted to enter into data licensing deals.”

So they approached Anna's Archive hoping to acquire millions of pirated copies of books for "pre-training data for our LLMs." Anna's Archive offers high-speed access for a fee, and NVIDIA executives asked about that kind of access. What would it look like.

Anna's Archive replied, in effect, "You guys know that our entire library consists of pirated copies, right? Maybe you should figure out if you're okay with that." NVIDIA executives would (real quote coming) need to let Anna's Archive know "when you have decided internally that this is something that you can pursue. We have wasted too much time on people who could not get internal buy-in."

It took NVIDIA just a couple of days to decide that they were perfectly okay making a deal to use this vast library or pirated works-- all of Anna's Archive, plus works from Internet Archive (previously found to be copyright infringement). NVIDIA was promised 500 terrabytes of data. They also hit up other shadow libraries.

A few months later, they unveiled Nemotron-4 15B. As was usual, the training data used to raise up this AI beast was kept a super secret, but the plaintiffs believe that it could not have been done without using that vast library of pirated works (including their own). 

And since NVIDIA offered the NeMo Megatron framework for customers to build and train their own AI. "As part of this process, NVIDIA assisted and encouraged its customers" to go ahead and pirate those works some more by downloading and using that same dataset.

So the allegation is that NVIDIA used pirated works, knew it was using pirated works, and then offered to share those pirated works. With a few smoking emails to back it up.

NVIDIA says, who, us? We didn't violate copyright laws. Everything we did was legal, and also, fair use.

It's the fair use defense we'll want to watch. An earlier lawsuit by authors suing Anthropic over the training data used for its Claude AI was decided last summer, with the judge declaring that using the stolen works to train the AI was "exceedingly transformative" and therefor okey dokey fair use. Also last summer, a group of authors (including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates) lost their similar lawsuit against Mark Zuckerberg's Meta. The judge in that case said it “is generally illegal to copy protected works without permission,” but in this case, the plaintiffs failed to present a compelling argument that Meta’s use of books to train their chatbot Llama caused “market harm.”

I don't suppose it will be easy to ever show market harm. ChatGPT slurps up my horror novel and then spits out fifty bad horror novels-- is that competition that does me market harm? 

So it's not looking good for this newest lawsuit. Is it theft if someone takes my work without paying for it and uses it to power their trillion dollar company's newest product? It sure seems like it, but it seems that the law is having trouble keeping up with the new kinds of thievery that technology makes possible. Mind you, if I stole a copy of Microsoft office and didn't use it compete with Microsoft-- just use it to run my business-- I'm pretty sure my claim of fair use would not get past the courts.

 And the AI industry--which depends on this kind of theft as to keep costs down in their business model-- certainly can't be counted on to do the right thing. So we're stuck in this shitty place where a monster industry bases its product on the theft-without-pay of other peoples' work, and nobody can do anything about it.

What does any of this have to do with education?

Maybe nothing directly, but I want you to think about all of this the next time somebody wants to talk to you about "ethical" use of AI in schools. Then ask them how one ethically uses a fundamentally unethical product.

AL: Not That Choice!

Tommy Tuberville, who is somehow a contender for the governorship of Alabama, joins the roster of school choice advocates who are actually against school choice.

Tuberville has been an impassioned advocate for school choice. "School choice brings the power of the free market, which is what we’re supposed to be, to our education system," "Coach" Tuberville bloviated during one speech in January 2024, in which he explained that his passionate concern for education for every child was why he ran for Senate. In September 2024 he unleashed more of the same:

School choice also shifts control away from Washington to parents. We can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach to education. For some students, a charter school might be best. For others, homeschooling is the ideal learning environment. For others, the local public school is the best path. Parents know their kids best and have the innate right to make the best decision for their child.

Except that some parents shouldn't have any choice at all.

Lasat week, Tuberville decvided to join in on the discussion about whether or not to approve the Islamic Academy of Alabama. And it was not to declare that school choice is a critical part of a bright future for every child. In fact, he had this to say about the school, which he says is "a tool used to influence young people and convert them to Islam (from AL.com).

In the future, in a year, I’ll be the governor, and I’ll be damned if we’re going to do that in the state of Alabama. We’re going to protect the people of Alabama; we’re going to protect our constitution. We’re going to protect our state and we’re going to protect our country.

Islam, says Tuberville (and, sadly, many of his supporters) is a "conquering cult" that is trying to take over the country, and in an appearance on the how-is-still-here bottom-feeding Infowars he vowed to fight it as governor. He told the host "there was no room for Muslims in Alabama and called the religion a cult that was a threat to America."

The school was seeking a zoning variance so it can move to a larger site in a city next to the city of its current location; in other words, Tuberville and company were not just attacking a hypothetical school, but an existing one with real live human students. Assistant principal Stacy Abdein pointed out that this kind of rhetoric demonizes and endangers those young humans.

When public officials spread dangerous myths about innocent students and families, they embolden hostility and increase the likelihood of harassment or targeted threats, undermining the safety and well being of our entire school community.

The school has been in ts current location for around thirty years. But some of us are feeling our MAGA oats. Protestors are the meeting held signs about the 100 year plan, a supposed plan for Muslims to turn the US into an Islamic nation in a century. Another speaker cited the supposed takeover of Britain by Muslims, echoing the idea in Trump's new National Security Strategy document which says Europe is in trouble because white folks are becoming a minority there. 

The city decided not to approve the school, citing zoning concerns and not, say, the virulent racism displayd by residents and an actual United States Senator. The school has announced it will stop trying. Meanwhile Tuberville (previously noted 2023's Dumbest Senator of the Year) is somehow still a viable candidate for governor. 

School choice? Tuberville is solidly against it, unless school choice means only choices that he approves of for people he approvs of. And despite what theory of choice advocates pursue, time after time, particularly in MAGAfied localles, this is what choice looks like. 

 

FL: Schools of Hope and Charter Property Grab

Florida is implementing a whole new way for charter schools to hoover up taxpayer dollars.

Schools of Hope started out in 2017 (the bill originally called them "Schools of Success" but someone must have decided against overpromising). The idea was the ultimate in targeting struggling public schools; the idea is that when you find a school that is struggling, you don't give them additional resources or support, but instead pay some charter school to come into the neighborhood. 

The scheme was cooked up by then-House Speaker Richard Corcoran and then-Rep. Manny Diaz, two long-time opponents of public education in Florida. And they got some help-- according to Gary Fineout, an AP reporter who has covered many Florida crazy-pants education stories:

Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and chairman of the House Education Committee, said legislators met with charter school operators and asked what it would take for them to set up schools in the neighborhoods now served by traditional public schools. He said one answer was that they needed help paying for new buildings to house the school.

Emphasis mine-- we'll come back to that. Cathy Boehme of the Florida Education Association pointed out the obvious:

You are saying funding matters. You're saying good strategies matter. And then you turn around and keep those strategies from schools that you could save from these turnaround options.

Yup. "We've found schools that need help," said the legislature. "Let's give that help to someone else!"

However, Schools of Hope did not take off. Florida was hoping to attract national charter chain action, but it turns out that national charter chains understand that in neighborhoods where public schools struggle, charter schools will also struggle (see also: sad story of Tennessee's Achievement School District). The League of Women Voters attributes the program's struggles to four factors:

• Facility costs remained prohibitive even with 25% loan caps and state subsidies  
• Building schools from scratch takes years of planning, approval, and construction 
• Local opposition emerged in some communities skeptical of outside operators 
• Easier markets existed elsewhere for charter operators seeking expansion

The legislature, more interested in nursing the charter industry than the public school system, tried modifying the law. They expanded the range of public schools that could trigger Schools of Hope, both in terms of school achievement and location. They threw more money at the program.

It still wasn't enough.

So this year, the Florida State Board of Education just went ahead and changed the rules. 

Remember that problem with getting new buildings up and running. Fixed! Colocation! Now districts must provide "underused, vacant, or surplus" facilities to SOH charters. No rent, no lease, no cost, and districts can't refuse. However, the district must provide building maintenance, custodial services, food service, and transportation. And as long as the facilities are "underused," the district has no say.

"Underused" is a big problem here. There's an administrative rule in the state code that defines "fully used" roughly as "no unused student seats," but that's not much help at all. Intermittent or irregular use? And there's a whole world of other programs that serve students in schools. As Education Matters in Manatee points out

[P]erhaps on an Excel spreadsheet (page 2 of 4 is shown below), a classroom housing six or seven students, one teacher, and several aides may appear to be “underutilized” - but it isn’t. It is in fact providing essential services to some of the most vulnerable citizens of our county.

Imagine you and some neighbors have a regular car pool to work. You share gas expenses, even pool money for a morning cup of coffee. Then one day another neighbor says, "I see you've got a spare seat in the car. I'm going to sit in it and you're going to drive me to work." The seat's not really empty, you reply-- most days we put the stuff we take to work there, and on Tuesdays we take Pat's mom to the doctor. "Don't care," says the neighbor. "You have to take me." Will you chip in for gas money? "No way," says the neighbor. "Also, you're going to buy me donuts and coffee every morning."

If this sounds like a sweet deal for charter operators, well, they agree. Dozens of charter operators have informed a public district that they want the district to fork over the space (WFTV9 pegs the number at 60, but that total appears to be a moving target-- Miami Times Online reports almost 700 "Give us your space" letters going out to school districts). 

And now that the rules have changed--Schools of Hope no longer target just low-performing schools, but any school with mysterious "underused" space-- many of the schools that are being targeted are A and B rated schools, which is swell for charters, because that's the market they want to tap anyway. Schools of Hope were launched with all sorts of florid grandstanding ("No longer will we rob children of dignity and hope. Now every single child will be afforded an opportunity of a world class education.," said Corcoran in 2017). Now charter operators can skip right past those challenging schools and head for the more profitable neighborhoods. Once again, school choice is really school's choice.

Sure enough, here comes Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy to cash in on Schools of Hope. Success has perfected the art of creaming families that will fit in-- none of this "every single child will be afforded an opportunity" baloney for Eva. Backed by $50 million from Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, she's looking to set up shop in Miami-Dade, a move that would have been expensive before the state figured out how to give her facility space (and food service and transportation) for free. In return she gets to pick and choose the most agreeable students from a market that didn't include any low-performing schools under the original definition. 

SOH present an assortment of problems on the ground--what, for instance, happens in a building where the public school staff and the charter school hours don't match up? Cafeteria time? Can schedules be worked out to manage students passing and mingling in the halls? 

And what the heck happens if the public school enrollment grows and they need some of the space back? The law doesn't appear to have any clue (perhaps because Florida legislators are focused on gutting public schools, not building them. 

A Success rep says this will be great for the public school because the co-located school will get increased state aid because of increased head count in the building. I wouldn't bet on it. Meanwhile, the charter gets to double dip-- the state hands over taxpayer dollars so that the charter can operate a school, but at the same time, the public school has to carry some of the costs of operating the charter school. 

And somehow, the party of small government is once again stomping on local control. The members of the community have no say, no voice, in whether or not the charter becomes a squatter in their public school building, and no say in how the charter operates inside that taxpayer-owned building.

What do they get? Hard to say. The results of Schools of Hope are, so far, not particularly amazing and in many cases have been outstripped by public schools that work with the same demographics. SOH charters are not subject to the same sorts of penalties for low performance that public schools suffer. No School of Hope operators have lost their designation because of their low academic performance. But beyond that, much is mysterious because Florida does not collect information about students at SOH charters-- not which groups are represented nor which attendance zones they came from. You would think that a program supposedly aimed at rescuing poor high-risk students would collect data about whether or not those students were being rescued, but no. 

If you're in Florida and want more information, I recommend the website schoolsofnope.org  and the recent report from the League of Women Voters. If you aren't in Florida, watch for this manner of picking taxpayer pockets in your state. 

Reformster Nostalgia And New Old Mistakes

There's been a recent uptick in reformster nostalgia, a wistfulness among Ye Reformy Olde Garde for a rosy past when there was a bipartisan consensus surrounding swell reform ideas like the free market and testing and the free market and No Child Left Behind and school choice and testing (e.g. Arne Duncan op-ed).

Mike Petrilli (Fordham Institute) has been substacking and gathering an assortment of all the old players to comment of education issues, running the gamut from A to B on various education policy debate topics, and in connection with that had a conversation over at Ed Week with Rick Hess (American Enterprise Institute) under the headline "Can School Reform Be Bipartisan Again?" Which is a question that certainly makes some assumptions, but let's take a look at what's going on.

Petrilli's stated motivation is fine. For one, he notices that substack is emerging as a way for people to scratch their writing and reading itch without having to slog through a variety of social media (some of which have become extra sloggy), and he joins a large club there (I know because I attend all the meetings myself). He also misses "the early days of Twitter and blogging, when we had robust debates about policy, tactics, and direction." Also understandable, and he explains what happened:

Unfortunately, as social media became a cesspool and the reform movement fractured along ideological lines, those conversations became full of vitriol and then largely went silent.

Sure. The ed reform coalition has always been complicated. The spine back in the day was a combo of free marketeers. social engineers, and tech/data overlords. Then Trump was elected, and then the culture wars were launched. Point to the moment when Jay Greene left academic reformsterdom and went to the Heritage Foundation and started writing pieces like "Time for the School Choice Movement to Embrace the Culture War."

It's not just that the ed reform movement became infected with Culture Panic. It's that the Culture Panic crowd is, almost without exception, a bunch of very unserious people. 

Over the past decade-plus, I've come to understand that the reformster tent is large and contains many different ideas and motivations. The reformster crowd includes folks who have some core beliefs and values that I believe are fundamentally flawed and the way to conclusions that I deeply disagree with. But they are people that I can have a conversation with, who use and receive words like their purpose is to convey meaning and not as some sort of jousting tool. 

The culture panic crowd is not serious about any of it. They are veiled and obtuse, deliberately misunderstanding what is said to them and using words as tools to manipulate and lever their desired results. They aren't serious about choice or educational quality or anything other than acquiring a dominant cultural position and personal power. There have always been some culture panic types within the reform tent (e.g. Betsy DeVos), but for half a decade they have been large and loud within the movement. "Let's use choice to encourage embettering competition" was replaced with "Get those trans kids off the track team." One of those is wrong, and one of those is simply unserious. 

Petrilli points to what he calls "reform fatigue," the result of two or three decades of hard push by reformsters. He calls it society's tendency to want the pendulum to swing back to the middle. "Eventually, the public grew tired, and the opponents of reform became more motivated than we, its defenders." 

He and Hess also point to the argument that Bush-Obama school reform was "simplistic and self-righteous," and Petrilli acknowledges the self-righteous part. Without naming Duncan, he says

I cringe when some reformers return to that self-righteous language, especially versions of “We know what works, we just need the political will to do it.” It’s a lot more complicated than that.

Petrilli also gives the movement credit for getting "big things" right, like the idea that "The American education system, with its 14,000 districts, elected school boards, and entrenched teachers’ unions, is not going to improve without external pressure." And he points to "student achievement" growing during the 1990s and 2000s, by which he actually means test scores.

Well, I think he's off the mark here. Fatigue? Simplistic? No, the reason that reform flagged was because it didn't work. Focusing on high stakes testing didn't achieve much, and most of what it did achieve was to damage school systems in numerous ways, from the narrowing of the curriculum to teaching an entire generation that the point of education is a Big Standardized Test. That and it became evident that test scores were a boon to data-grabbing tech overlords and people who simply wanted a tool for dismantling public education. 

The premise of a necessary "external pressure" is also problematic. Petrilli suggests that the pressure can come from "top-down accountability or bottom-up market competition," but I don't believe either of those will do what he imagines they will. Top-down accountability guarantees policies that are mis-interpreted as they pass down through layers of bureaucracy and which result in a compliance culture in thrall to Campbell's Law. Market competition is a terrible fit for education (see Greene's Law-- the free market does not foster superior quality; the free market fosters superior marketing). One of the bizarre fundamentals of the reform movement is the notion that educators are not doing a better job because they have not been offered the optimum combination of bribes and/or threats. 

Petrilli and Hess do not confront one of the fundamental flaws of reform, which is the notion that the Big Standardized Test is a good and effective measure of educational achievement, as if the question of how to measure something as vast and variable as the effectiveness of education is all settled. When David Brooks says that Republican states are kicking the Democrats' butts in education, all he's doing is comparing scores on a single math and reading test. As a country we have repeated this so many times that it is accepted wisdom, but the Big Standardized Test is just an emperor behind the curtain with no clothes. Will raising this student's BS Test scores give the student a better, richer, fuller, happier life than they would have had with their old lower scores? There isn't a shred of evidence for that assertion, but in the meantime, we keep pretending that a single mediocre math and reading test tells us everything we need to know about education.

Petrilli makes a passing reference to how unions never liked "testing, and especially accountability" (he has maybe forgotten their full-throated, member-opposed embrace of Common Core), which is just a rage-making assertion, because teachers and their unions have never, ever been against accountability. What they have opposed is accountability based on junk that has no connection to the work they actually do. Let's not forget that test scores soaked in VAM sauce gave us accountability measures that fluctuated wildly or that had to be run through other mechanisms in order to "evaluate" teachers via students and subjects they didn't even teach. The "accountability" created under Bush-Obama involved an awful lot of making shit up. 

Did test scores go up for a while? Sure. I was there. They went up because we learned how to align the schools to the test. Not to the education-- to the test. 

Petrilli muses about the nature of the reformster coalition, like the old one with members on the "ideological left, including Education Trust and other civil rights organizations" and I must confess that I never saw much "left" in the reform coalition. Petrilli says maybe we'll get back to a world where the parties fight over the center and then business groups and civil rights groups will become involved, and maybe, though reform has had plenty of chance to demonstrate how it can lift up minorities and the poor and it, well, didn't do that. If "populism" stays big, Petrilli muses, maybe they'll have to get involved with parents' groups and alternative teacher organizations "like the one that Ryan Walters now runs."

Well, except that would take them right back to a tent full of unserious allies who are not on the left, but are further right than Ye Old Reformy Garde. 

I'm inclined to ignore the right-left thing when it comes to ed reform. I think it's more accurate to frame the sides as pro- and anti- public education, and pro-public education voices have always been in very short supply in the reform coalition. Instead, reform positions on public education range from "Let's rebuild everything" to "Let's dismantle it and sell the parts" to "Burn it all down." 

Petrilli's smartest bit comes at the end:

For the people in the trenches, I’d encourage them to remember that student learning depends on student effort. And whenever they face a big decision related to curriculum, instruction, discipline policy, grading, AI policy, or anything else bearing on the day-to-day realities of schools, they should ask themselves: Is this going to make it easier or harder for my teachers to motivate their students to work hard and thus to learn?

This is actually pretty good, and it points to my suggestion for the imaginary new revived ed reformster coalition.

Include some actual teachers. 

I get there is a challenge here. In the same way that policy wonks and bureaucrats don't have real on-the-ground knowledge of teaching, teachers don't have real on-the-ground knowledge of policy wonkage and promotion. But ed reform continually misses the viewpoint of the people who have to actually implement policy ideas. 

Ye Olde Reformy Garde has come a distance since the days when they were hugely dismissive of teachers. Many have caught on to the fact that maybe deliberately alienating the people who have to implement your policy ideas is a poor choice. Maybe, just maybe, they've deduced, most teachers are in the profession because they really want to do a good job, and not because they are lazy sinecure-seeking slackers. 

But reformsters still miss the actual aspect of how their ideas play out on the ground, and those insights could save everyone a great deal of time. 

And no-- all those education reform leaders who spent two years with Teach For America do not count. Two years is bupkis; a real teacher is barely clearing her career throat after two years. 

Would working teachers just defend the current system so fiercely that no reform could happen? Of course not-- walk into any school in the country and the teachers there could tell you ten things about their system that should be fixed. Would teachers support accountability? Of course-- if it were real and realistic. Teachers have a powerful desire to teach next door and downstream from other teachers who are doing a good job. 

Lord knows I have no nostalgia for the old days of reform, when every year brought new policies that, from my perspective, ranged from misguided all the way to ethically and educationally wrong. Neither am I nostalgic for the days before modern reform. Public education has always needed to improve, and it always will, because it is a human enterprise. 

It would be great to have a reformy movement based on asking the question "How can we make schools better," but way too much of the reformster movement has been about asking "How can we get free market activity injected into the public school system" with answers ranging from "inject market based school choice" all the way to "blow it all up." It has marked itself by and large as an anti-public school movement since the moment that the A Nation At Risk folks were told their report had to show that public schools were failing and we were subjected to decades of pounding into the "common knowledge" that American schools are failing. And if the reform movement wants to revive itself, I suggest they start by owning all of that. 

We could have school choice, if that was what we really wanted, and we could have it without the segregation effects, the inefficiency and wasting of taxpayer dollars, without the pockets of really terrible education, without the instability of bad amateur players, without, in short, all the effects we get by trying to create free market school choice (I've explained how elsewhere).  But the reformster movement has long seemed far more interested in the Free Market part than the Improving Education part. They have spent forty years explaining that public education is failing because that's the justification for going Free Market (and national standards and high stakes testing) and yet it turns out that none of those things have been particularly helpful at all.

I do sense a new trend in Ye Reformy Olde Garde, and it's there in Petrilli's last paragraph-- a focus on policies "bearing on the day-to-day realities of schools." It's a good choice which might yield some productive discussions, particularly if those discussions are expanded to include people beyond the A to B gamut, because I know where you can find about 3 or 4 million people who are familiar with those day-to-day realities.