Destroying Pre-K

From Claudio Sanchez on NPR:

Suzanne Bouffard's new book, The Most Important Year, may be just what parents of preschoolers have been waiting for; a guide to what a quality pre-K program should look like.

Oh no.

It's not that we didn't know this was coming. As kindergarten has been retooled to become the New First Grade, or maybe the New  Second Grade, where littles are bolted into desks so that they can get their studies under way and we can confidently say whether or not a six year old is on the path to college and career, it was clear that this toxic stew of inappropriate expectations would trickle down to Pre-K as well.

This guy. Genius. You just wait.

The signs are everywhere. The mommy bogs have been buzzing about this Pre-K newsletter that chastises parents because their three- and four-year-olds are causing problems, so that the first month has been "a really tough first month with tears, attitudes, unwillingness, not listening, not obeying the rules and especially, too much talking and not enough sitting in seats when asked to." Honestly, they've just been acting like a bunch of children.

Also circulating has been this form, supposedly a Kindergarten readiness inventory from Pennsylvania (while many folks have told me it looks right, I haven't been able to confirm the source). There are thirty "indicators" listed, including algebraic thinking, counting, collaborative communication, writing process, text analysis, phonics and printing words. Again, just so we're clear, this is to be ready to enter kindergarten, not a list of exit skills.

So it should come as no surprise that Bouffard's ideas about a good Pre-K are, well, scholastically oriented:

Successful pre-K [programs] teach children to learn to be learners, how to be curious about how things work and find answers to problems.

No.  First of all, if you are trying to teach a four year old how to be curious, you are seriously confused. This is like trying to teach them to breathe, or to be short. Just get out of the way and try to be helpful. Oh, and then she adds this:

Another really important piece of a good program is that it focuses on things like self-control and behavior in the class, how to wait your turn, how to share, how to deal with frustration and how to solve conflicts. 

Yes, when you send a small child to any group thing, you are hoping they will learn how to share, take turns, and generally co-exist with others. But "focus" on "self-control and behavior"?  Are we seriously advocating teaching three and four year olds to properly knuckle under and submit to the system?

Look, I get that small children must learn to behave like reasonably civilized creatures and not wild animals. And later in the interview Bouffard makes some better points about letting children construct their own learning and the dangers of shaming children (and teachers) to improve and even acknowledging that children develop different skills at different rates.

Now that being said, its never too early to expose children to rich language, word games, shapes of letters and the sounds they make. But there's a big difference between exposing children to those things and expecting everybody to meet a certain reading standard at a certain age and testing them on it.

I'm glad she said that. I'm sorry she didn't more explicitly say that expecting to meet a certain standard is wrong and damaging and is a clear sign that a Pre-K is toxic and to be avoided. Instead, she includes a story about helping a little figure out a trick for solving the problem of writing sixes backwards.

When it comes to play versus academics, Bouffard is from the "false dichotomy" school for folks who believe that you can, you know, just guide the play a little to have an academic experience. "Free play is very important and it has its place in and out of school, but we shouldn't be afraid of curricula that tries to teach specific things." Here we disagree. For the littles, play is the only thing that really matters. It is the number one priority. And if it's called "curricula," it most likely doesn't belong in Pre-K.

Sigh. Deep breath.

I've been to Pre-K with my grandson in Seattle, where they have a great network of Pre-K's. He played. Sometimes he played by himself, sometimes with others, sometimes games that the teacher led, sometimes games that obviously had some learning content. That all seemed about right to me-- and my grandson is, in my objective professional opinion, a genius. His language use is very sophisticated and he Knows Stuff. He's an exemplary kid, and that's for basically one simple reason-- my daughter has played with him pretty much every day of his life. Not tried to "teach" him stuff-- just played with him in a rich environment, with lots of love and exploring and play.

I have what may be a unique perspective on early childhood education. My older children are around thirty; my younger twins are about to turn four months. I look at the huge gulf that separates the kindergarten of my older children's generation from the early childhood ed of my twins and grandchildren and all I can think is what insane humans commandeered this part of the education world that is responsible for the care of such vulnerable, precious cargo?

Bouffard does get one this part right:

If a child has been in a supportive and nurturing classroom, then goes into a classroom that's strict and focused on punishing children, that's a rude awakening.

The big take-way here is: Any gains a child makes in a quality preschool program will fade away in a classroom that's not supportive and nurturing.

But I don't think books like Bouffard's will help. At this point, the mania for academia is so strong that even a decent, responsible, play-oriented Pre-K has to mask its program by talking about curriculum and skills. Too much damage is being done to too many littles, and we're going to be paying for it for years. 

A Better Way To Measure School Quality

In every discussion, debate, argument and flame war about using test-centered accountability to evaluate schools, sooner or later, devotees of test-generated data will unleash this one:

Well, if you don't like this system. what do you want to do instead?

Now, I want to note that I reject the premise of that question. If I'm suffering from lung cancer and a garage mechanic comes into my hospital room with a chain saw and says, "We're cutting off your les\gs" and I reply, "Like hell you are," the mechanic does not get to say, "Well, then you'd better propose some other limbs to chop off." Just because the mechanic has some crazy ideas about how to treat me, that does not mean the burden of proof is on me. The burden of proof is on the crazy person with the chainsaw, or, in our case, the well-connected education amateur with a standardized test. If you can't prove you know what you're doing, you don't get to operate, and I don't need an alternative to demand that you and your chainsaw back off.

Not this

That said, it's not a bad idea to develop some means of evaluating schools. I've take a stab at it myself re: teachers. But now we have a better, more complete answer to the question, and it comes in the form of a must-read new book from Jack Schneider.

Schneider (who tweets as @Edu_Historian) is an assistant professor of education at the College of the Holy Cross. Schneider has written extensively about education, including some ambitious projects such as his long-running edweek blog in which he entered dialogue with a number of education voices, including She Who Shall Not Be Named, former DC ed chief. Currently he co-hosts the podcast Have You Heard with Jennifer Berkshire.




Beyond Test Scores: A Better Way to Measure School Quality is a look at both the general principles of how to create a better school evaluation system and also at the specific work of creating an actual system for some schools in Massachusetts.

You can tell that the book is serious because the cover is pretty bland and boring, but Schneider's voice as always is clear and conversational, a scholar who knows how stuff, but spends most of his days with non-ivory tower folks.

The basic idea here is as simple as it is on point.

Who's the best actor? We could ask ten people and get ten answers , because "best" is not quantifiably objective. Your choice depends on your personal values-- do you think chiseled good looks matter more than smooth, youthful, charm? What you value most will affect your ranking.

Or let's consider the nutritional panel on a food item at the grocery store. The panel gives us lots of information-- but it doesn't try to rank the foods. You do that yourself, based on what you value most.

It's the state, the bureaucratic level, that wants to come up with a too-simple overly-reductive ranking system that is actually not very informative for parents, students, taxpayers, community members, or even teachers. (Everywhere I look these days, I see echoes of the book Seeing Like a State-- thank you, Andy Smarick.)

In six brief, clear, and thorough chapters, Schneider lays out what we're getting wrong and how we can get it right, as well as the practical aspects of applying this approach in the Somerville, Mass, school district.

Chapter One: Wrong Answer

A great summary of how we got here and why testing doesn't really tell us what  proponents claim it does. In addition to the usual criticisms of the Big Standardized Test, Schneider mentions one that we don't bring up often enough:

While there may be some benefit to the skill of sitting quietly to focus on a test, that skill is separate from one's ability to read, write and compute.

He notes the late-nineteenth century attempt to create a scientific system, but also with the goal of tighter governance. "In other words, it was not enough to have created statewide networks of schools that would be free and open to children. They also wanted to control what was going on inside those schools." Then, as now, a tool was needed to essentially wrest autonomy away from the professional educators in the school.

Tests were, and are, such an instrument. And the tests were also hella profitable, so that "entrepreneurs would not just work to meet demand, but also to manufacture it."

All this was simply setting the stage before A Nation at Risk. Policy elites were looking for a way to put their foots down, and as Schneider puts it, "State-run testing offered a way of solving the problem of teach autonomy."

This chapter alone is a great piece of reading to offer anyone who wonders what the big deal is about the Big Standardized Test.

Chapter Two: Through a Glass Darkly

How do people (parents in particular) currently gauge school quality? Schneider unpacks research to show a variety of ways, from bad ways like the test scores and  the US News badly constructed list of schools, to really bad ways like checking to see how many black kids there are. Or just plain conversations. You can dig through the specifics, but here Schneider makes it clear that the available sources of data range from lousy to irresponsibly bad.

Chapter Three : What Really Matters

In chapter three, Schneider lays out his new framework for school quality. If we all have many ideas about what a good school does, are there commonalities, some areas that we can agree one? Schneider says yes, and in this chapter he lays out the framework for five areas, grouped into two headings. And he gives us a look at how these played out in the

For "Essential Inputs" we have  Teachers and the Teaching Environment, School Culture, and Resources. Under "Key Outcomes" we have Academic Learning,  and Character and Well-Being. There are subheadings for each, and a lot of details to get into in this chapter, but does this not already look better than any school evaluation system you've been subjected to previously. (My only nit here is the absence of any long-term results-- where are the grads in ten or twenty years).

This chapter also includes one of my favorite obvious-but-worth-saying quotes:

As one teacher put it: "Parents still expect us to help their kids grow up. Not just ace [the state standardized test]. But grow up."

There are clear definitions of each category and sub-category here, with banks of questions to ask and have answered. This chapter is the meat of the book, the chapter that you should be sending to your board members and strategic planning committee.

Chapter Four: But How Do We Get That Kind of Information

Schneider looks at some of the methods for gathering the information that his model calls for. That includes surveys -- yes, he argues, they really work, and he gets into the specifics of designing them to yield useful information.  He also talks about performance assessments, harkening back to the nineties. If you are of a Certain Age, you may recall that education was being swept by a wave of authentic assessment just about the time NCLB came along and put paid to that whole business, elevating the inauthentic assessment of BS Testing. And in all fairness, Schneider recalls one of the big sticking points-- assessment systems like portfolios are time-consuming and expensive?

Intriguingly, Schneider also devotes some space to how parents could create a DIY pilot of these methods.

Chapter Five: An Information Superhighway

Schneider here looks at how to make the information that has been collected available.

Everyone, whatever their level of expertise, has a right to know how the schools are doing.

In this chapter, Schneider focuses pretty specifically on the Somerset experience, but articulates some clear priorities for the system. He talks about how to visualize the performance ranges for each characteristic of the schools, noting that they did not allow users to rank schools by characteristics.

They also did some interesting work on how the system  might change perceptions of schools. The system didn't really move the needle on local school opinions which, in keeping with usual poll results, were pretty positive. But the system did change hearts and minds about those Other Schools-- in fact, those opinions could even be changed by second-hand reporting of results. And word of mouth remains hugely influential for schools with which folks don't have first-hand contact.

Chapter Six: A New Accountability

Finally, Schneider addresses accountability systems and how they can grow out of new school quality measures.

In particular, he lists nine  guidelines for a "fair and effective" accountability system.

1) Empower communities in the improvement of schools.,

2) Create a system of reciprocal accountability. Schools are responsible to perform; government is responsible to support.

3) Use multiple measures to assess and report on school quality.

4) Capture what communities want to know. Man-- this.

5) Establish benchmarks based on high -quality schools. I'm less excited about this.

6) Place greater weight on student growth than on absolute scores.

7) Emphasize support rather than punishment.

8) Capture a reality that members of the school community will be familiar with. In other words, if your evaluation system brings back results that contradict what everyone with first handf knowledge knows, something's wrong with your system.

9) Remain an unfinished poduct

Wrapping up.

There is a lot to chew on in this book But it's pretty exciting to hold the answer to "So how should we measure school quality" in your hand. I recommend you buy ten copies of this book and give nine away to administrators, school board members, and legislators. Yes, the field is currently owned by fifty mediocre-to-crappy ESSA compliant systems. But within a year or three, everyone will notice that those systems are failing, and when the call goes out for something better, this book can already have laid the groundwork.

In short, read this book.

ICYMI: The Sleepless in Pennsylvania Edition (10/1)

Sometimes my wife and I have the twins thing pretty much under control. This week has not been one of those times. Here are some fine things to read, many of which I read at about 2 AM.

Degrees

Alfie Kohn on the speed and degree of transformation. As always, worth the read.

What Everyone Gets Wrong about Kindergarten

One more angle on the ongoing destruction of kindergarten in this country

Dear Parents: Your pre-schoolers Have a Bad Attitude and Keep Squirming- This Must Stop

The mommy blogs picked a letter sent home this week to parents of pre-schoolers. It's not a good look.

Teachers Are Grown-ups, Not Children

From across the Atlantic, this piece about someone who changed careers and was astonished to discover that teachers are not treated like grown-up professionals. 

Education and Economic Mobility 

Apparently Rachel Cohen wasn't getting enough angry e-mail, so she wrote this piece which has stirred some debate, in which she argues that the research says that education is not a major factor in economic mobility.

Selling Education Technology Via the Federal Education Technology Plan

Thomas Ultican looks at the federal role in marketing ed tech.

Public School Inc: When Public Education Turns into Big Business

The Center for Investigative Reporting takes a close look at BASIS, Arizona's big charter success story-- depending on your definition of success.

How To Call Bullshit on Big Data: A Practical Guide

From the New Yorker. Made my week by introducing me to the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.

Dark Money in Mass

Andrea Gabor with a good summing up of the dark money mess in Mass, where various bad actors tried to secretly support raising the charter cap.

Torture Is Not Education

The Wall Street Journal thinks America needs Chinese education. The Wall Street Journal is wrong.

Why Higher Ed Is Not K-12

There is so much about public education that Betsy DeVos appears not to understand. But judging from her speech at Harvard last night, she is getting more comfortable with her ignorance. Here's one moment I want to focus on.

And doesn’t every school aim to serve the public good? A school that prepares its students to lead successful lives is a benefit to all of us. The definition of public education should be to educate the public. That’s why we should fight less about the word that comes before “school.”

I suspect all of you here at Harvard, a private school, will take your education and contribute to the public good.

When you chose to attend Harvard, did anyone suggest you were against public universities? No, you and your family sat down and figured out which education environment would be the best fit for you. You compared options, and made an informed decision.

No one seems to criticize that choice. No one thinks choice in higher education is wrong. So why is it wrong in elementary, middle, or high school?

I haven't edited anything here-- this exceptional piece of rhetorical whiplash is as it appears in the published version of her prepared remarks.

To summarize-- education should be for the public good, which is why families should be able to choose schools based on their own private interests.

But comparing public K-12 education to higher education is actually a good way to highlight how school choice can be a lousy idea.

Harvard Is Not about Choice

Students do not choose Harvard. Harvard chooses its students.And like almost all colleges and universities, Harvard requires students to maintain a certain level of achievement so that they can stay. "Your family sat down and figured out which education environment would be the best fit-- and then you hoped and waited to see if they would let you in."

Of course, the unspoken subtext here is that if you want to go to Harvard, you have to prove you deserve it, either through your academic achievement, your family connections, or your father's big fat bank account. If you don't deserve to go to Harvard, you'll just have to settle for whatever place you DO deserve. And your deservingness will be determined by admissions offices and the thousand other little cultural hurdles you have to jump.

That's the subtext of DeVos's "best fit" rhetoric-- it's the same subtext as the admissions officer or guidance counselor or apartment complex administrator saying, "Well, wouldn't just be happier in a place where you fit in a little better? You know-- with people more like yourself, with a similar background (and race)."

Higher Education Is Not a Leveller

Public education is still touted as the opportunity to level or escape class boundaries. That's arguable, but higher education makes no such claim. Harvard has no grand interest in erasing class divides in the US, and in fact colleges do a much better job of solidifying those divides than erasing them. Rich, well-connected folks get Harvard; poor folks get Podunk Community College.

Higher Education Doesn't Care About Leftovers

My beef with a privatized business-oriented approach to education remains the same-- business not only allows, but requires, leftovers and rejected customers. Our higher education does not provide a higher education for everyone, nor does it even pretend it wants to. Millions of students do not go to college. A K-12 education system that excluded or ignored millions of students would be a catastrophe.

And yet no cheerleader for choice, least of all Betsy DeVos, has an answer for who will take responsibility for the students who do not make it into a charter-choice system. At best, the suggestion that those leftover students, the ones that no charter wants, will be left behind in the public system (you know-- the one that's not allowed to reject students for no good reason) that is increasingly underfunded and underresourced because the money is all being diverted to charters.

Higher education doesn't have to care about the leftovers because we still accept that not everyone will want to go to college. That marks a substantive different between higher education and the K-12 system. DeVos is correct in saying that public education should educate the public-- all the public, not just the select portions of it.

Quality

Higher education is also instructive about how quality fares in a choice system. Because on the one hand, you have Harvard. And on the other hand, you have schools that are sports programs with a few classes attached. And on the other other hand, you have schools that award diplomas that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The lack of serious accountability has created a system with wildly varying levels of quality, and DeVos, who has repeatedly stood up against accountability measures, is okay with that. American taxpayers should not be-- not when it comes to K-12 education.

Whose Interests Are at Stake?

In the higher education system, it is primarily the interests of students that are at stake. In K-12, all of society has a stake in the system. Public schools do not exist to serve only parents. The interests of the students, their future employers, their future neighbors and co-workers, their future fellow voters, the community as a whole-- all of these interests are represented. That's why all taxpayers chip in (unlike the higher ed system). That means that all stakeholders get a say, and all public schools should be subjected to a considerably higher level of oversight and accountability than a school ike Harvard.


Why is choice wrong for K-12? Believe it or not, I don't think it has to be wrong. But as currently proposed and practiced, it's wrong because

* There must be accountability for where and how public tax dollars are spent (that includes both issues of quality and issues of violating separation of church and state)

* The system must be fully funded. You cannot run three schools for the money previously spent on one. Don't make it a zero-sum game-- fully fund it.

* Do not leave leftover students behind. Do not push students out because they don't fit your model. If you want choice, make it parents' choice, not the school's choice.

* Students before profits. No for-profits choices. And stringent rules on not-for-profits, most of whom are currently just for-profits with good money-laundering systems.

* Total transparency and complete local control.

None of these are features of the system that brought those students to Harvard. That's why choice in higher education, while not always very successful, is less objectionable than choice for K-12.

Why Schools Are Not Food Trucks

Betsy DeVos's continued search for an analogy by which to illustrate her view of schools regularly reveals how uch she doesn't understand about public education.

Last night at Harvard, DeVos unleashed this one:

Near the Department of Education, there aren’t many restaurants. But you know what — food trucks started lining the streets to provide options. Some are better than others, and some are even local restaurants that have added food trucks to their businesses to better meet customer’s needs.

Now, if you visit one of those food trucks instead of a restaurant, do you hate restaurants? Or are you trying to put grocery stores out of business?

No. You are simply making the right choice for you based on your individual needs at that time

Just as in how you eat, education is not a binary choice.Being for equal access and opportunity – being for choice – is not being against anything.

As always, DeVos chooses an analogy that paints education as a commercial transaction in which the customer buys some goods. That's fatally flawed, but let's move on for now. DeVos likes to focus on the customer's point of view, while ignoring all the other factors that will, in fact, affect both the "customer" and the vendor.

The food trucks on the mall in DC are involved in a zero sum game. There is only so much space on the streets where food trucks deploy, and it is all occupied, which means that if anybody wants to park a new food truck there, an old one will have to be removed. Space on those streets is a finite resource. To give it to one truck is to take it away from another.

DeVos likes to characterize these sorts of balancing acts as emotionally charged moments-- here she points out that food truck patrons don't "hate" restaurants. Hatred is beside the point. This, too, is a zero sum game; if I spend money at a food truck, that is money I cannot spend elsewhere.If everyone eats at food trucks, restaurants will go out of business. DeVos does not have to hate public schools in order to choke off their resources and let them be run into the ground (in fact, I get the impression that her feelings are somewhere between disdain and indifference).

Note that DeVos continues to drift further and further away from any interest in accountability for quality-- in this analogy we pick the choice that tastes good, and if it happens to be unhealthy or toxic or laced with fried dog meat, none of that matters. Taste is not a bad guide for matters of food, but with schools, what "tastes good" today is not necessarily what will best serve the student, the family, the community and the nation over the coming decades. "Tastes good this moment" and "provides a solid education for a lifetime" are two entirely different metrics

Like every other commercial enterprise, the food trucks of DC are not geared to handle all customers. There are many reasons that comparing schools to businesses is a huge fail, but this is one of the hugest-- there is no business sector in this country built on the idea of serving every single person in the country. Each food truck operates on the idea that some people will eat there and other people won't, and as long as enough people eat there, the food truck is good. But if there are people who don't eat at any of the food trucks, some people who don't eat at all-- well, that is not the food truck operators problem.

And as a customer, you can't get whatever you want-- you can only get what the trucks are serving.

The modern charter industry is a business model, and just like any other business model, it is built on serving some customers. Making sure that every student in America gets a good education is not the goal, the purpose or even the concern of the charter industry. But it has to be the concern of a public school system.

Schools are not businesses. Students are not customers. And education is not a side of fries.

Trumpifying High School Sports

So this just popped up on my twitter feed:

And it has begun.

High schools are now following Trump’s order.

Will kick off any players who don’t stand during the National Anthem. pic.twitter.com/lfNWyW7z5f

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) September 28, 2017

The letter is from the principal of Parkway High School in Louisiana (Home of the Panthers) and it says in fairly clear terms that all school athletes will stand for the national anthem or face disciplinary action, and if they still fail to comply, then the school will kick those sons of bitches off the team.

It is hard to know how far and how fast this will spread, but I suspect that somewhere at an ACLU office, someone cut lunch short to start drafting the lawsuit that this school is going to lose.

After all-- we've already got the 1943 Supreme Court decision that makes it clear that a school may not require students to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Schools frequently get confused about whether their role is to force compliance or to recognize that students are live human citizens of the United States of America. First Amendment freedoms still apply even if you are under 18, and no, our soldiers did not fight and die so that all Americans could be forced to salute a flag or stand for an anthem whether they wanted to or not. No, the hallmark of freedom is not allowing people only to have the freedom to do what you think they ought to do. Forcing everyone to stand for the flag and the anthem is the hallmark of totalitarianism. It's not okay.

Being rich and/or powerful doesn't mean you get to "fire" everyone you disagree with. And that goes double for students.

Here's hoping that Parkway, and any schools that choose the same path, go down to a quick and definitive defeat.

Puerto Rican Crystal Ball

Imagine that we could collect up all the non-white, non-wealthy citizens of this country. Would it give us a better opportunity to make sure those folks were better served? Could we focus our attention social institutions like schools and health care? Would we concentrate on creating a strong and robust infrastructure? Would we provide ample opportunity for local voices to be heard and be important players in democratic self-rule?

Or would we treat those folks like second-class citizens? Would we treat the infrastructure and institutions of that community as important only as chances for investors to make a buck? And would we then demand that the investors' voices be the loudest ones, that local self-rule must take a back seat to making sure that investors have the final say (so that they can make their money, no matter what that means to members of the community)? Would we demand that they make their own needs secondary to the needs of investors and hedge fundies?

Well, if we look at Puerto Rico, we have to conclude that the second paragraph is the accurate one.

Puerto Rico is an instructive example because it is, as President Trump has wisely noted, an island in the ocean. We can't quite perform such perfect examples of non-democratic vulture capitalism to our mainland communities of non-wealthy non-white citizens because they aren't on an island. We can't quite-- but Puerto Rico is a sign that we'd like to.

We'd like to take the black communities of Chicago and cities like Detroit and the poor parts of LA and strip locals of democratic control, impose investor rule, and start strip-mining them for financial benefit, and in many such communities, the rich and the powerful have taken steps to do so. Schools-- public education-- are often a first target because they operate with the most democratic process to be swept away and the greatest pile of money to be swept up.

Put another way, Puerto Rico is an answer to the question, "What would privatizers and profiteers do if we collected the non-white non-wealthy in a single place, stripped them of political power, and removed all obstacles to doing as we wished." The answer is not a good or encouraging one, and it is put into starker relief in the current crisis, which presents us with a follow up question-- "What would we do if the place had been mostly hollowed out of its valuables, and then something Really Bad happened?"

Just a few days ago, Tyler Cowen wrote "Puerto Rico's American Dream Is Dead" for Bloomberg View:

The underlying reality is that the political and economic model for the island just isn’t working any more, and the dream of Puerto Rican economic convergence has been laid to rest once and for all. That in turn says something bad about the rest of this country, namely how quickly we will give up on the possibility of transformational change.

That's the depressing lesson here. Puerto Rico has been our little aspirational laboratory for how non-wealthy non-white folks are supposed to Make It Work in this country, but in fact, it has become a demonstration of how we stack the deck against them, and then stack that stacked deck on top of them to hold them down.

Watch carefully over the next year. We are going to learn something about ourselves as a country, as a people, by how we treat Puerto Rico, now that the island has been crushed by natural disaster. Early indicators are not good. We are slow to respond, reluctant to lift the Jones Act on shipping restrictions for any length of time (because it protects corporate interests), and have offered to give them more debt to pile on top of the already crushing debt.

Puerto Rico makes plain the expectations for non-white non-wealthy citizens-- not only do we expect them to rise by being smart, hard-working, and independent, but we expect them rise by doing all these things while larger powers work to hold them down. It's a stark reality in Puerto Rico, but once you see what it looks like there, it is mighty hard not to see it in the predatory exploitive treatment of non-white non-wealthy citizens on the mainland. We can see the future of many communities and their schools, and it is not a pretty one.