Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Recovery Commission Targets Gutting Of Public School

While Trump has announced a variety of groups he wants to gather together to charter a pandemic recovery for the nation, there's one group that is already on the job-- and their plans for public education suck.

The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission-- doesn't that sound grand? It sounds like a real official government thing, only it isn't, exactly. It's the project of the Heritage Foundation, a right-tilted thinky tank that has been a major policy player in DC since the days of Ronald Reagan. They've successfully pushed a bunch of policies over the decades, with their one fumble coming in health care-- these are the guys who designed what became Romneycare that became Obamacare, thereby transforming a hyper-conservative policy idea into a policy that conservatives vowed to destroy. If you have wondered "Why don't conservatives come up with their own health care plan?" the answer is that they did-- and it's Obamacare. Oh, politics.

This guy.
The Heritage Foundation has joined the Federalist Society in serving as a staffing arm of the Trump administration, and had a whole list of appointee "suggestions" ready when Trump won. Which may explain why some coverage of the NCRC includes phrases like "will work with the White House on ways to have a smooth reopening of the country when it’s time."

The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission (subtitled "Saving Lives and Livelihoods") is composed of seventeen "heavy hitters" including former governor George Allen, retire Cato chief John Allison, some Heritage Foundation people like president Kay James and--

Well, look. It's Kevin Chavous, the big cheese at K12, the 800 pound gorilla of the cyber school world, the one funded by junk bond king Michael Milken and founded by a McKinsey alum (anoter early investor-- Dick DeVos). They've had more than their share of messes (like the time the NCAA decided K12 credits don't count). But the Trump administration has been good times for them. And Chavous used to help run the American Federation for Children, Betsy DeVos's dark money ed reform group, from which he called for the privatization of post-Katrina New Orleans education. Do I need to add that he has no actual education background?

NCRC issued some recommendations yesterday, and much has already spurred discussion (particularly the "get rid of all the rules" parts), but we're just going to look at the education piece, which, given what I've told you so far, should come as no surprise:

States should immediately restructure per-pupil K–12 education funding to provide education savings accounts (ESAs) to families, enabling them to access their child’s share of state per-pupil funding to pay for online courses, online tutors, curriculum, and textbooks so that their children can continue learning. Students are currently unable to enter the K–12 public schools their parents’ taxes support. They should be able to access a portion of those funds for the remainder of the school year in the form of an ESA.

ESAs are super-vouchers, a voucher that let parents spend public tax dollars with little oversight or accountability. It's a bad policy idea for a variety of reasons, but this implementation would be particularly brutal if what they're seriously proposing is to strip public schools of all funding for te remainder of the year. Seriously?? Just finish the year with zero dollars because we're just going to hand out the rest of your operating budget as vouchers?

It also appears that the NCRC has assumed that no schools are actually doing anything right now, that no students in the US have continued learning. Perhaps the craziest juxtaposition here is to put the plug for online resources (you know-- like K12) with the assertion that families deserve money back because their children can't enter the building, as if the building is te most critical part of education.

The one actual lie here is the implication that the parents would just be getting back the money they put in for the schools "their parents' taxes support." But of course all taxpayers support the school, and perhaps the rest of the taxpayers might want their investment to be maintained for the remainder of the year, the staff--who are still working at teaching students--to be paid and the buildings to be maintained.

These guys are either too lazy to pick up a phone and find out what is actually going on in schools, or too greedy to care. But they are not yet done making terrible recommendations:

Additionally, state restrictions on teacher certification should be lifted immediately to free the supply of online teachers and tutors, allowing anyone with a bachelor’s degree to provide K–12 instruction online.

Because if cyber schools are going to cash in, they need access to cheap labor. The recommendations go on to allude to research that "suggests" that teacher certification gets no better results than any shmoe, and of course by results they mean tests scores, because part of the point of the Big Standardized Test is to reduce the aim of teaching, to McDonaldize them job so that any shmoe can do it and employers can pay shmoe-level wages. Ka-ching.

In keeping with the rest of the recommendations, this isn't about helping the country recover so much as it's about turning it into a free market wild west where entrepreneurs can cash in. This is some top grade amateur hour bullshit here. Shut down the schools, give the money to families so that we can pitch our education-flavored goods which, incidentally, are staffed with non-qualified meat widgets, the better for us to cash in. And if a pandemic helps us push the replacement of human-centered professional public ed with private screen-centered amateur run education-flavored businesses? Well, ka-ching, baby.

Monday, April 20, 2020

MA: Governor Offers Terrible Reason To Re-open Schools

Well, of all the stupid reasons to re-open schools before summer comes, this offering from Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has to be among the worst:

One reason Baker said he wants to see schools reopen before the end of the school year would be so students could take tests to determine how far behind they fell due to the pandemic.

Baker has been an ed reformster since he was elected in 2014, complete with ties to the charter industry and threw his own weight behind the ill-fated, dark-money-financed initiative to raise the charter cap.

So it's not exactly a shock to find him advocating for this idea, which is, I should repeat, really dumb.

This guy has a really bad idea.
The governor says he wants teachers and students to know where they stand in May so that--well, study hard over the summer, or prep form the fall, or something. It's a dumb idea.

First, you drag in a bunch of students who haven't been inside school for a weeks and weeks, try to get them re-acclimated, and then plop them down in front of a standardized test that has few-or-no stakes for them.

The test only covers a couple of subjects, and they haven't prepped for it. And when I talk about test prep, I don't mean pre-coaching the answers. That's only one kind of test prep, and a pretty rare kind at that. Test prep is about teaching students the testing language, format and techniques. For instance, it is only in the world of the Big Standardized Test that "reading" means "read a short excerpt from some bland source, then answer some multiple choice questions about it." So teachers bombard their students with practice versions of this. The whole goal of test prep is so that when the peculiar formats and questions of the BS Test land in front of the student, the student responds with "Oh, this again," instead of "what the hell is going on here." The younger the student, the more time needed to prep them for this Kafkaesque game.

Bottom line: Baker can try to drag all the students into school in May to take the BS Test, and maybe most of them will come, but the test results will tell teachers and students absolutely nothing useful.

As for using these results over the summer-- the MCAS results are usually released in the fall. Maybe he has a plan to expedite that-- I mean, he is quoted as saying "so that there’s some idea about things people could work on over the course of the summer so they’re not completely behind when they show up in the fall." I can't even imagine what that looks like-- "Mom, Dad-- my reading score was low, so can I have some MCAS prep books for summer vacation"?

Also, the MCAS has been officially canceled about a week ago (Baker signed the bill and everything). So maybe Baker wants to administer some other test? Or tests? That the systems are going to get from... somewhere? Tests R Us? Or the MCAS people who had previously stood down and gone home would be suddenly be called back to active duty:?

Did I mention that this is a dumb idea?

There are only two potential benefits to opening schools in order to administer the MCAS-- the folks who want to see public schools get failing grades so that charters look more appealing would get that bump, and Measured Progress, the company contracted to operate MCAS (oh, and their subcontractor Pearson North America). No, wait-- Measured Progress is now part of Cognia, which is the new name for the Measured Progress and AdvancED combo, and they offer stuff like "Unmatched expertise to help you achieve visionary goals." They seem fun. Maybe Massachusetts should drag all those students into school to help Cognia keep making money.

Does any of this seem worth sending students back to school in a month under current conditions. Does anyone imagine Massachusetts parents saying, "Well, I'm afraid of the coronavirus, but it is for your Big Standardized Test, so I'm sending you to school."

Anyway, it's not clear exactly what Baker has in mind, but there's no version of this that is not a dumb idea.

Non-dumb idea? When you get back in the fall, let the teachers do what they do every fall-- use their own mixture of formal and informal assessments to figure out what their students know, and then go from there. "Trust your teachers to do their jobs" is a much less dumb idea.

The Road Out

Sometimes I use this blog as a sort of macro-- when I find myself engaged in the same pieces of the same argument, it just gets easier to try to hash it all out in one spot so that thereafter I can just point instead of typing it all out again. This isn't very much about education, it's not very carefully edited (in fact, I may well keep adding edits till I get it closer to what I really want--hey, I'm a blogger, not a journalist), and it's not short. You won't hurt my feelings if you just skip it.

My social media pages are overflowing with anger these days; I imagine yours are much the same, even if you only interact with people on your side of things. Worse even than the usual political sniping, I find it kind of disheartening and discouraging. It's as if we as a country, as a society, are emotionally unable to process, let alone cope with, the unfolding crisis. 

It's not that people just disagree--it's that the human tendency to assume that people on the other side are stupid and/or evil just seems to be out of control. It's not enough for my pro-open-back-up friends have to disagree with people who see a larger threat. They can't just say, "I think that model is wrong" or "This seems like a bad idea." Instead, it's characterizing people who are complying with safeguards as hysterical victims. Governors are fascist, trying to impose authoritarian regimes. Hospitals and medical authorities are cooking the books and faking the numbers because money and Big Pharma. 

Meanwhile, on the other side, people who want to re-open the economy are murderous bastards, money grubbing killers intent on lining their pockets with blood money.

And all of them talking about this situation is really, really simple and if you don't see it that way, you are just evil or stupid. All reasonable and rational people agree with me.

Yes, the pandemic has elevated one of the central tensions of our country-- business versus human beings. And I've long believed that we have long been too far tilted to the economics side of that, that we try too often to run the country on a foundation of business values rather than human ones. I even believe that much of our trouble right now is exacerbated by that business emphasis, making us underprepared and making our economy too brittle to handle this, as well as highlighting the ridiculousness of having so many people whose jobs are "essential," but whose pay and health insurance is at the bottom of the barrel. Not to mention our use of measures of prosperity that somehow only really measure how well people at the top are doing.

All that said, humans depend on the economy functioning. If the economic collapse continues or worsens, the first people to be crushed under the rubble will be the non-wealthy. When the bubble burst in 2008, it was not the head of Goldman Sachs who ended up homeless. When the economy tanks, peoples' lives are ruined. Peoples' lives are lost. I do believe that the economy should serve humans, and not the other way around, but a ruined economy is like a lifeguard in a body cast. The people who will get crushed by a unchecked pandemic are also the people who will get crushed by an unchecked economic collapse.

So there are reasons to want to re-open the country beyond greed and power.

At the same time, the coronavirus is not an imaginary threat. Real people have really died from this really contagious virus. It's demonstrably not "just like the flu." And while some sub-groups may be more at risk than others, there is no group that hasn't been touched. Arguing that people under sixty or under twenty are hardly ever killed by it is not that helpful. Here's a bowl of M&Ms-- 99 are perfectly fine and one is deadly poison. Are you going to just grab a handful for a snack?

I'm not any kind of virus scientist (and neither are the people writing all the "Why this isn't really a big deal" articles I keep seeing). But I have friends who are, and I trust them. And I trust the information that tells me that something really contagious and potentially deadly is spreading rapidly around the world and the country. People are scared, and the closer they are to the reality, the more they have personally encountered the deadly effects of this, the more scared they are. Maybe you feel that there's nothing to worry about, but the barest minimum of human empathy should require you to appreciate that people are really afraid. I'd argue that they have reason to be afraid, but if you want to argue that this is all some kind of overblown hoax, I'll argue that you still have to deal with the reality of a whole lot of scared people, and "deal with" doesn't mean simply mock, dismiss, and berate them, nor does it mean circulating baloney from weak sources whose only claim to credibility is that they confirm what you already believe. None of that will get you where you want to be (unless your part of that group that doesn't care where we end up, as long as you get to kick people around on the way). 

The "don't take my freedom" crowd has their own set of fear issues which shouldn't be hard to understand for those of us who are disturbed by Trump's repeatedly expressed desire to be emperor. I think they're mostly wrong; when you carry a virus around, you are making choices for other people. The right to drive does not include the right to drive drunk. But I get that they're worried about the State coming to get them. They've been fed a steady diet of that fear by folks who gain money and power from it, but that doesn't mean they don't actually feel the fear.

All of this would be easier to navigate if we had solid information and actual data (well, somewhat easier, since we live in an age in which people feel entitled to both their own opinions and their own facts). We don't, and we're apparently going to be subjected to an endless subsidiary argument about why not. We could get started on the problem now, but Trump lacks the ability to function as either a useful President or useful human being in this situation. The better hope is that, as they figure out that DC has rendered itself irrelevant, other leaders and authorities will somehow get the kind of testing in place that's needed in order to get a grip on things. How infectious is this stuff? What are the mortality and morbidity rates? How is transfer best slowed down? We don't really know, and we won't know until we get testing running at the level needed to generate useful data.

And the politics that has polluted the issue means that some folks are actively working to obscure rather than unveil information. And no, I don't see this as a both sides do it issue-- Trump and the GOP are working far harder to rewrite events into a politically useful form than the Dems are.

As for the "I have no obligations to any other people except myself" crowd-- I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people, though I might point out that much of what is upsetting folks right now is that other people have stopped taking care of them in a seamless and easy manner, so maybe you could flip that around and see your own effect on others. But this one has always stumped me. There are no self-made, self-sufficient people in this country--not a single one. If you think you don't owe anyone else anything because you made yourself, you are deluded.

For veterans of the education debates, it should not be news that on all sides you will find people who are in many ways dire opponents. Opposition to Common Core brought together people who are staunch believers in public education and people who would happily see it eliminated. So yeah-- some folks are seriously concerned about both the problems of a shuttered economy and the threat of a pandemic, and some folks are angling for a political advantage, and some folks are super-sad that their ability to do whatever they want has been impinged on, and some folks think that if it hasn't happened to them it just doesn't matter. 

But I titled this post "The Road Out." So here's what I think about that.

First, it would help if people could be kind. This is a scary, difficult time-- on many levels for some people who are worried not just about the virus but about things like food and shelter and the hope of having an income again some day. We aren't all in this together; some of us are getting hit hard and some are not. Do not assume that because everything's great at your house, everyone who complains is just a whiner. Our situations are widely varied and wildly specific. If your situation is good, be grateful, and show that gratitude by treating others well.

Assume good intent, but when someone tells you who they are, listen. You may want to ding me here for my comments about Trump and his uselessness in this kind of crisis as well as his lack of human virtue and his unfitness for the Presidency, but I've been watching Trump for forty years or so, and he's always been pretty direct about telling us who he is, and I believe him. There are reasonable, rational people of good intent on almost every side of this thing--assume you are dealing with one of them until they convince you otherwise.

At the same time, don't be a dick. I hear from former students about people who are crappy to the workers in stores and fast food places, as if these employees are agents of Deep State oppression. If you are actively trying to make life more miserable for someone, just stop. That includes trying to make people feel bad for disagreeing with you on Facebook. And that includes passing on things you haven't verified. Seriously. Like the radio caller who said that hospitals are getting paid $39K for each COVID death, so they're lying about it. The same people who think that school shootings are faked are out in force again, and I believe deeply and fervently in free expression but with great power comes great responsibility and somehow people have got to stop amplifying this bullshit, because it hurts us as a country in profound and lasting ways. So I don't care how much you love that the article or meme you found supports your chosen point of view-- you have got to do your due diligence before you post.

Second, adjust expectations. We will not come out of this overnight. There will not come a magical morning when our leaders will announce, "Okay, it's all gone. Everyone can get back to their normal stuff." Nor will there be a magical, "Hey, everyone admits it's not really a problem, so we can just cancel all the precautions and just re-open everything again." And even if those magical moment actually occurred, all the frightened citizens are not going to say, "Cool! Yesterday I was afraid for my life, but now that you've said that, all the fear is completely gone." 

I agree with those who say it's going to be a game of steps. When much decrease in viral spread is enough? How much of the economy can be re-opened? Re-pose those questions over and over and over. Between round of the questions, collect a mountain of test data so that we can see how it's actually going. 

Governors could open schools and businesses tomorrow-- but who would go? In my neck of the woods there are businesses that shut down before the governor ever issued any edict. Certainly there would be some folks right there when the doors opened.  And after the spread of COVID-19 that followed, how hard would it be to get people out of their homes the next time? 

This will all be complicated by the other issues we have to navigate. A Presidential election. A shredded social safety net. It turns out when you shrink government until it can be drowned in a bathtub, it's not much help with a pandemic or the accompanying economic mess; we should probably talk about that, and I'm sure there are people who won't want to have that conversation at all. We need to talk about health care. We need to talk about why some people got hammered so much harder by this mess than others. We need to talk about how to come up with a government that can help when it's needed without overreaching. We need to talk about how urban solutions are a bad fit for rural areas. And we'll have to have these conversations in the midst of a swirl of attempts to write and rewrite history. 

I'm really hoping that none of that gets in the way of getting the country up and running again, whatever that is going to look like.

None of this is going to come with easy answers, and it is ripping the thin cover off problems we were already successfully mostly ignoring, so now we get to debate about those, too. 

We’re About To Hear Many Suggestions About How To Reshape Education. Here’s How To Sort Them Out.

The vast majority of the nation’s schools have pressed pause due to the current pandemic. In many areas they will stumble through the remainder of a year that will little resemble an ordinary year. This is already prompting many folks to declare this a golden opportunity to reconsider some of the traditional features of U.S. schooling. 
If we’ve got to have school without grades, without desks and rooms, without set hours for meeting anyway, why not consider how to play with these features to create better school systems? Lots of folks have thoughts. Some of the ideas that emerge will be useful and worthwhile, some will be opportunistic profiteering, and some will be baloney.
Here are some clues to sorting the educational wheat from the opportunistic chaff.
Who is pitching the idea?
Teachers know the system better than anyone; they are, in fact, the leading experts on public education in this country. Most teachers have spent their entire career thinking and talking about how to make the system better serve students. They’ve already started talking about how this crisis could present opportunities (here’s one such conversation in action). 
When you’re considering a hot new idea for education, consider the source. Look the pitcher up—do they have any educational training or experience at all. Note: if they spent two years in a classroom before starting their career as an educational entrepreneur or thought leader, that doesn’t count. And if their bold idea just happens to involve a program produced by a company they run or invest in, well, that doesn’t necessarily mean their idea is a bad one, but it certainly is reason to examine the goods carefully.
Has the idea been field tested?
Is there any evidence that this bold new idea might work? Has anyone ever tried it? Do we know how that went? And if formal research is cited, did it come from a peer-reviewed third party study, or was it in-house research by the same folks selling you the solution?
Check also to make sure that the evidence matches the bold idea. Folks trying to sell computer-guided lessons have often cited a forty-year-old study about the benefits of having a tutor, as if having a personal human tutor is the same as doing worksheets on a computer screen. 
Does the idea fit the problem? 
Some folks do an excellent job of identifying an issue, but then take a huge leap to get to their proposed solution. No matter how compelling and clear their statement of the issue may be, you should still press for an answer to that most critical question, “And how, exactly, does your idea fix that problem?” 
Are computers involved?
Advanced computer technology has opened up many possibilities in education. But ed tech’s defining characteristic continues to be its tendency to promise far more than it can deliver. Ed tech promoters have learned that parents don’t get very excited about proposals that sound much like “We’ll have your child sit and work at a computer screen for hours.” 
But often that’s exactly what a pitch for “personalized learning” or “adaptive instruction” or “putting the emphasis on learning instead of seat time” actually mean—spend more time working at a computer screen. While such an approach will probably improve someone’s bottom line, there is little evidence that it will improve a student’s education.
Does the idea sound fully formed and polished? 
If it does, that’s a bad sign. The U.S. education system is complicated and complex, with millions of moving parts. Most of the current “solutions” are the result of compromise and experimentation over decades. Anyone who claims to have a new solution that is quick, clear and simple to implement is either delusional or selling something. Any useful ideas that come out of this period of opportunity will have rough edges and questions that can’t be answered until we give it a try—and they won’t be good answers for everyone. When it comes to education, one size will never fit all.
The current pandemic creates opportunity for change, both for educators and for disaster capitalists. It will take some care and attention to make sure we’re listening to the right voices.
Originally posted at Forbes.com

Sunday, April 19, 2020

ICYMI: It's Not Normal Until It's Not New Edition (4/19)

In other words, there's no such thing as a new normal. But here we are anyway. Have some reading to pass the time.

My Transition To Emergency Remote Teaching

As always, I would like to be as smart as P. L. Thomas when I grow up. Here, while reflecting on his own transition, he offers insight on what is or is not right with remote teaching.

A Dozen Good Things That Could (Just Maybe) Happen As A Result Of This Pandemic    

Nancy Flanagan has some optimistic thoughts about where we could end up when all this is done.

No, Everyone Is Not Homeschooling Now  

From the blog a Potluck Life, a few thoughts from a homeschooler about how to just relax about this whole schooling at home thing.

Are charter schools public or private?

Jan Resseger takes a look at the recent attempts by charter schools to identify as public or private depending on which designation brings in the most money.

David Berliner: Hoe Successful Charter Schools Cull and Cream

Berliner is one of the top academics looking at ed reform. Here he is guesting at Diane Ravitch's blog to offer some insights into how, exactly, charter schools control which students they serve.

Teachers Could Retire In Droves

Andre Perry looks at what might happen if teachers decide that this is just the last straw and looks like a good time to finally retire.

What Teaching Looks Like Coronavirus  

Well, I'll be. Some reporters at NPR decided to talk to actual teachers about the effects of the pandemic pause. Imagine that.

Google classroom app flooded with 1-star reviews

Students have one way to voice their opinions during crisis schooling.

No, this is not the new normal  

Robert Pondiscio checks in at the Fordham blog with some level-headed thinking from the reformster side of the tracks. No, remote learning is not about to become the primary form of US schooling.

Screens and worksheets aren't the answer

Rae Pica takes to Medium to stand up for sensible education ideas for the littles.

What a Global Pandemic Reveals about Inequity in Education  

Christina Torres on Medium to alk about the big fat underlining of inequity that has occurred under the current crisis.

Online Learning Should Return To A Supporting Role

The New York Times offers this from David Deming: "Winner-take-all economics and cost-cutting may make many in-person lectures obsolete, but the best education continues to be intensive, expensive and done in person."


Saturday, April 18, 2020

Why Teach Literature? The Whole Collection

I created a series of posts about the teaching of literature, and they ended up being sprinkled here and there. I thought I would just pump them out one after another but after I got started--squirrel!! So for those of you how enjoyed them, I'm putting this up to collect links to all of them in one place so that you can get to them more easily, should you ever wish to.

I know these aren't as entertainingly crabby as some of my stuff, and appeal to a more narrow audience, but I still like the exercise of thinking about what to teach and why. It's easy to get caught up in the day to day mess. Nice to step back and look at the bigger, more important picture behind the rest. So here they are:

Why Teach Literature Stuff: #1 What Is It?

Let's define our terms before we start.

Why Teach Literature Stuff: #2 Humanity

Because we all want to know what it means to be fully human in the world, and it takes a lifetime to even start to find out.

Why Teach Literature Stuff: #3 Knowing Stuff Is Useful

It's really handy to have a bunch of knowledge stuffed in your head.

Why Teach Literature Stuff: #5 Language Is Power

If you want to control your world, language is Tool #1.

Why Teach Literature Stuff: #6 Not For These Reasons.

There are bad reasons to teach a work of literature.

Why Teach Literature Stuff #7 Everything Is Reading

Because there's nothing to teach that isn't reading.

Friday, April 17, 2020

Why Teach Literature Stuff #7 Everything Is Reading

When I was teaching, and I had extra time on my hands, I would reflect on the work--the whys and hows and whats. So in solidarity with my former colleagues, I'm going to write a series about every English teacher's favorite thing-- teaching literature, and why we do it. There will be some number of posts (I don't have a plan here).

Also, it would be nice to write and read about something positive, and I don't know anything much more positive than what teachers do and why they do it.

Well, actually, everything is history. But history is reading, so there you are.

Being able to read, then interpret and understand and make sense from what you've read is the most universally useful skill that exists. Today more than ever, as we have collapsed back to the text-based medium we call the internet. Even reading an image or a video is reading. And writing, which is the only means available (okay, maybe not the only) for reaching out beyond the physical bonds of your own body and somehow connecting with other humans-- writing is also reading.

You interact with other humans, socially or at work, and you have to read them, parse their words, draw conclusions about their character and intent. Reading.

You have to do the same thing with nothing but the written word to go on. You're on social media or email or even, God bless you, opening an envelope and lifting out a piece of paper with marks on it, and you have to sift as much meaning and sense from those marks as you can. Reading.

You wade into the world of current events, filled as it is with the folks whose intentions are more reliable than their understanding, traveling cheek by jowl with confused amateurs and ill-intentioned bad actors. All mixed in with a smattering of people who know what the hell they're talking about. And nobody--not a soul--who you can just trust completely 100% of the time. How do you sort through all that? Reading.

Words are a fundamental part of what makes humans human. Reading and writing make me feel just as vibrant and alive and energized as drawing breath on a long run or standing at the top of a sky-lifting hill or even-- well, never mind. Reading is fundamental to who we are and how we function in the world.

Figuring out how to solve a problem, change a tire, balance a checkbook. Reading.

Being touched by fellow humans in the darkest of times. Reading.

Spending a lifetime grappling with the nuances and complexities of how to be a citizen, friend, parent, neighbor at this place in this time. Reading.

And reading is a skill, a mental muscle (and not, as some would presume, a collection of handy tricks that, once checked off the list, are equal to any puzzle) that must exercise and grow to stay well. One of my fundamental beliefs about humans is that we are either moving forward or losing ground; there is no standing still. So we are always exercising those reading muscles, need to be stretching and growing them.

Reading is uniquely, foundationally human. We were driven to create it as surely as we were driven to harness fire and cleave to each other. When we take it for granted, view it as drudgery, we close our eyes to one of the most amazing things that makes all our other amazing things possible. Try to imagine a world in which humans don't read; it certainly wouldn't look like the world we live in.

Everything is reading. It's a big damn deal.