Tuesday, August 18, 2020

For Teachers, This Is All Unfortunately Familiar

It didn’t have to be this way.

I’m not the first person to make that observation, and I won’t be the last. But it bears repeating. Because, for many regular citizens this school reopening-during-a-pandemic business may seem like a brand new adventure, but for educators, this is a new arrangement of a song they’ve heard many times before.

In some alternate universe, political leaders—top folks, like governors and even the President—sit down last winter, or even last spring, and have a long hard talk about schools in the midst of a pandemic.

“Schools are critical,” someone declares. “The workers who keep the economy going need to be freed up to get back on the job. Beyond that, we cannot tolerate on our watch a generation of young people getting a small slice of the education to which they’re entitled.” A resolution is reached. “We will do,” the elected leaders declare,” whatever it takes, come through with whatever resources are needed. We will assemble a blue ribbon panel of scientists and teachers and they will figure out what is needed to get public education safely running again, and we will take their recommendations and make them real.”

In this alternate universe, the secretary of education is pushing and cajoling and shaming and bully pulpiting Congress to authorize the necessary resources. “Not only that,” says the secretary (and some other leaders), “but if we are going to ask public school teachers to be the front line troops in this critical battle, we are going to make damned sure they are taken care of.” Or perhaps in that universe leaders are declaring, “It can’t be done safely. We’d better repurpose billions of dollars for the training, technology and infrastructure needed to pivot US education to distance learning. It’ll be expensive and difficult, but at least it will keep people save and students educated.”

But that’s an alternate universe.

In this universe, it’s the same old same old. Some lofty rhetoric about how critical education is, how heroic teachers are. And that’s it. Thoughts and prayers and grousing about how we already spend way too much on public education. We’ve been here before.

We pass a national mandate requiring schools to provide a free and appropriate education for every student, no matter what obstacles that student may face—but Congress never actually funds the mandate.

We repeatedly “discover” that non-wealthy non-white communities are poorly served by schools that lack adequate resources, but somehow nobody ever musters the will to get those schools the resources they need.

We regular declare a “crisis” in the US’s “failing” schools, and every time teachers cringe because they know whose fault it’s going to turn out to be—teachers. Teachers should be smarter. Teachers should have higher expectations. Teachers are being protected by their evil unions.

School shootings increasingly alarm the public, who once again declare their admiration for heroic teachers. The federal government even puts together a task force, headed up by the secretary of education, to look at what can be done. Her recommendation for protecting students and teachers? Arm teachers.

When Congress does try to direct some relief funding for schools dealing with the pandemic, that same secretary of education does not fight for more support for schools, but instead looks for ways to use those funds to back her preferred non-public school causes. Meanwhile, the administration spent more to “rescue” a single airline than to prop up the entire child care sector.

Meanwhile, the administration’s official position seems to be that there is no problem, and if there is, somehow the local schools will handle it, somehow.

It is true that there are no good solutions for the reopening of schools in the fall. It is also true that there are no cheap, safe solutions for the reopening of schools this fall. But that is a little bit true every fall, and every year teachers are encouraged to get in there and do the best they can anyway.

This is the song every teachers knows. “You do great, important work—but we already spend way too much on you, so don’t expect any more help to appear.” (Of course, it’s not how much you spend, but how you spend it, but that’s another conversation we aren’t having.) And then the next chorus is, “You are such great heroes, and we sure admire your love for the kids—and if you really love them, you won’t demand any more from us.” To listen to the rhetoric, one would conclude that there is nothing more important to this country than educating our children; to watch the actions of politicians and bureaucrats, one would conclude that education is a small after thought and political football.

Reopening schools during a pandemic is new only in the degree of severity. For a teacher, it’s all too familiar. You’re changing the flat tire on a bus loaded with kids, in the rain, and they’re hungry. A big shiny Lexus pulls up next to you, and some politician or bureaucrat lowers the window and hollers, “Boy, that looks tough. I admire your hard work and dedication.” You ask if he could make a phone call for help, or get out and lend a hand, but he doesn’t seem to hear. “Well, hey, good luck to you,” he says, rolling up the window. “I’m sure you’ll make it all work out.”

It didn’t have to be this way. It still doesn’t. Educators would love to hear something other than that old familiar song. But they can’t wait; the flat tire won’t change itself.

Monday, August 17, 2020

Silicon Valley and the Surveillance State

Peter Schwartz is an American futurist, innovator, author, and co-founder of the Global Business Network, a corporate strategy firm. He's done sexy things like consult for futury movies, including WarGames (ew), Minority Report, and Sneakers (an under-appreciated gem). He's written an assortment of books; he also wrote the 2004 climate change report that predicted that England would be a frozen wasteland by, well, right now. (This Peter Schwartz should not be confused with this Peter Schwartz, Ayn Rand-loving writer. )

Schwartz was the subject of an interview in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle, reminding us that there's an entire sector of future-looking tech-loving folks who think the advent of the surveillance state is pretty swell.

Schwartz is not in Silicon Valley-- he's a Beverly Hills guy. And not everything he says is alarming. For instance:

Every single time, with no exceptions, that I’ve gotten the future wrong, it’s because there was an inadequate diversity of people in the room. It was not that it couldn’t be seen; it was that we were just talking to ourselves.

Technocrats desperately need to hear that, but the prevailing ethos is the idea of a single visionary CEO without other voices to hold him back. As in Zuckerberg's unwillingness to let go of control of his company or his money, or Reed Hastings' belief that school boards should be scrapped because they just get in the Visionary Leader's way.

But then the interviewer asks how our feelings about surveillance are "evolving," and, well, Schwartz doesn't dig very deep.

There will be times when it’s abused, when data is stolen, when people are harmed by it. But for 99% of the people, 99% of the time, it will mean that you didn’t have to show your ticket to get on BART; it means you didn’t have to check out at the supermarket; it means that when somebody stole your kid’s bike, it will have been seen. Oh, and that unhealthy people will be detected before I get on the airplane.

There's no question that folks hav e shown that they are more than willing to fork over huge amounts of personal data for a smidgen of convenience. Hell, people still insist on giving away tons of data just so they can take a "Which kind of exotic cheese are you" quiz on Facebook. But look at how quickly he skips past the down side, and characterizes it as the occasional bad actor, and not a dystopic system of surveillance and control. But here we arrive at an article of misplaced faith.

We’re now in a global village where the truth is everything can be known about everybody.

The truth is that we can collect a great deal of data and factoids about anyone, but that's not everything. This is like believing that if you know your spouse's height, weight, shoe size, favorite color, previous addresses, well, you know everything you can (or need to) know. This is exactly like believing that if you have collected a bunch of standardized test scores from a student, you know that student.

If we could just collect all the observable, quantifiable data, we would know everything about everything. So let us collect it all. Because it's going to happen anyway.

That's the Silicon Valley ethic, and it's wrong on several levels.

First, collecting all the data doesn't make one all-knowing. I'm not just talking about the whole "difference between knowledge and wisdom" thing, or pointing at romantic odes to human complexity and depth (though those things are true, too). Read up on Information Theory and Chaos science-- complex systems define specific, linear predictability. It doesn't matter how many facts you collect--you still can't predict exactly what comes next.

Second, get your paws off our data. Better yet, if you want it, pay for it. If we're imagining our favorite futures, I'd like to imagine one in which customers don't pay for the privilege of being data mined. It's not just that data mining is invasive and obnoxious--the current practitioners are still really bad at it. Feeding that bad data into systems yields bad results.

Third, it's not inevitable. Tech folks--especially ed tech folks--invariably present sales pitches in the guise of future predictions. They are wrong, a lot, in part because they are the techno version of the used car salesman saying, "I can just see you driving this baby out of here." No. You hope to see that, but right now, it's just a sales pitch.

The surveillance state won't be a happy utopia occasionally interrupted by the blip of isolated bad actors. The big use of data is to help mold and direct the behavior of the masses, and the two big motivators for that kind of nudging are 1) the desire to make money and 2) te desire to acquire political power, and we've already seen both in action.

The surveillance state will continue to come after schools, because how else do you gather All The Data except by starting early? Schools are easily seduced partners because too often some folks in charge (and some, sadly, in the classroom) are attracted to the idea that they could get so much more done if they had more data, more control (this is true for public, charter, and private schools). One of the decisions that educational institutions must make, late as it is in the game, is whether they want to help the data miners or become protectors of student data.

They should be protectors. When buying a program, they should require that everything collected will stay within the district's system, to be easily scrubbed when the students leave or graduate. When subscribing to an online service, they should demand ironclad assurances that student data will not be shared (not even with "trusted partners") or kept after the student graduates. Schools are where the foundation of the surveillance state will be laid; schools should be actively and deliberately making sure that foundation doesn't get built.


Sunday, August 16, 2020

Country Club Pod School

So you run a string of private tony country clubs, offering "unique access to sports, fitness, luxury hospitality and family-friendly amenities across multiple clubs," and the pandemic has not been very helpful for your business. But you've got all this space. What can you do to get the money stream flowing again?

Open a school, of course.

Let me introduce you to the Bay Club, an organization offering 24 clubs across 9 campuses, including Portland, Marin, San Francisco, East Bay, Santa Clara, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Peninsula campus. They all sound pretty swanky, but as a sample, here's the Peninsula Campus description:

The Peninsula Campus is designed as an ultimate escape from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. With two premier properties and endless amenities and services, the Peninsula Campus offers a state-of-the-art tennis facility, as well as year-round fitness, aquatics, and family programming. With over thirteen acres between two Bay Club locations, there are plenty of ways for you and your family to play.

On that particular campus, you can join the Redwood Shores club at various levels of swankitude, from individual dues as low as $280/month up to $950/month (on the low end, there is also a $1,000 "initiation fee") with assorted benefits for each level. Fees vary a little bit by location and club, but you get the idea.

So what do you do with, say, 180,000 square feet of empty gym space? You open it up to the hot new world of pod learning.

So the Bay Club now offers the Distance Learning POD Program.

Our on-site Distance Learning PODS feature monitored online learning, extracurricular programs and world-class sports and fitness activities for grades K-12. A turnkey solution for parents and school districts!

The Bay Club has "teamed up with" aka "contracted" KinderCare Education, an outfit that specializes in pre-K care and after-school programming. Also, some "top West Coast universities" are in the mix.

The KinderCare piece is tied to the offerings that cover age 0 through grade 5. The K-5 piece promises to focus on "developing the whole child" through a "rich, nurturing curriculum." The students will get support with remote learning as well as enrichment. For grades 6-12, the promises are more modest-- in addition to "monitoring online learning," they'll get some "athletic and sports clinics led by our fitness professionals." Plus socializing with other students.

For the littles, the cost is $375 /week for non-members, $337.50 for members, and $300 if you have a family membership. The middle and high school programs run $275, $247.50, and $220 a week.

The New York Times just ran a piece about how many folks are being priced out of the learning pod phenomenon; this seems like a fine example of that. And not just priced--I'm sure that the well-manicured luxurious grounds of the Bay Club make it clear who exactly is welcome and who is not (plus transportation, meals, etc)-- this is just not available to all parents. Not everybody is in a position to send their child to private POD school in a literal country club.

And while one might imagine that the idea of Betsy DeVos and others to give public school money to parents to fund pandemic ed (another voucher angle), I remind you that for Bay Club students, there's still a public school somewhere providing the actual distance education. Should they have their funding cut while still doing their job?

Under current pandemic mess rules, we're getting a peek of what education looks like without a robust fully functional public ed system operating, and it looks a lot like a world in which the well-to-do get what they want for their kids, and everyone else just has to scramble for scraps. Experts and historians note (you should really check out this podcast on the subject) that pods threaten to become a new sort of opportunity hoarding, a return to the kind of inequitable education that we created public education to get rid of.

The Bay Club is actually owned by KKR & Co, a massive global investment company. This is a teensy weensy sliver of their business; let's hope that nobody up the corporate ladder notices this and decides to move on.

Oh, and if it seems as if I'm over-reacting to call the Bay Club program a school when they don't even make that claim themselves, let me point out that the model of this kind of pod set-up-- students workin away at coursework delivered via screen while some adult is handy to coach and refocus them-- is exactly the same model as a variety of charter and private schools (looking at you, Summit).

ICYMI: Bloggaversary Edition (9/16)

Back on this date in 2014, I put up my first post on this blog. I took me a month or two to figure out what I was doing, but here we are, a few years, about 3750 posts, and over 9 million hits later, still plugging away. Traditional anniversary gifts are either candy or iron, so I will eat some chocolate today in honor of the occasion.

In the meantime, here are some items to read. I'll repeat my standard request-- if it speaks to yu, share it. I have an audience not because I'm some blazing light of wisdom, but because people have over the years boosted my signal, shared my stuff, passed me along. You can do that, too. If you think something is worth reading, pass it on.

Why Bother Testing in 2021  

At Diane Ravitch's blog, David Berliner and Gene Glass lay out the reasons that this would be a good year to just skip the Big Standardized Test.

Why I'm Okay With My Kids "Falling Behind."

At Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams lays out why she has bigger things to care about than having her kids catch up to some imaginary bunch of benchmarks.

The Covid Experiment: Facing the Sins of a Nation That Quit Caring About Public Education Long Ago

Nancy Bailey looks at how the current crisis suffers from years of neglecting public education.

Nurse Leverage

When a nurse wrote a piece castigating teachers for not getting back to work, she touched off a firestorm of replies. Here's one of the better ones, from Stone Pooch.

We Got Racism, Right Here In River City

Nancy Flanagan looks at a little outburst of racist baloney that got national attention. It's a reminder of some larger problems that are not going away easily.

Ed Tech Cashes in on the Pandemic

Gayle Greene provides a good overview of how the pandemic is pushing the replacement of live human education with screens, screens, and more screens.

Fewer Students Are Benefiting From Doing Homework  

Unless you want to fork over money for the actual paper, all you get here is the abstract of this 11 year study. It is not exactly news-- technology has made it easier to "generate" answers for homework, making the homework a big waste of time. But now there's apparently researach to back this up.

You Made Me Enforce Useless Dress Codes for Years. Don't Claim Face Masks Go Too Far

At EdWeek, a teacher points out the obvious--administrative complaints that they can't make mask wearing more than a suggestion are just baloney.

Oklahoma County Judge Fines Epic Charter  

Epic charter schools tried to shut up an Oklahoma state senator; now they've been slapped with a half million dollar fine for it.

Success Academy Settles Discrimination Suit  

Gary Rubinstein notes that Success Academy just settled a years-old lawsuit brought by some families over the treatment by the charter school powerhouse.  It's not cheap.

Learning Relationships In The New Normal  

Jose Luis Vilson with some useful insights about what really matters in the return to pandemic schools.

Cake, in the manner of Trump administration guidance for reopening schools   

Laugh and cry as Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post imagines what baking a cake would look like if the Trump administration brought the same clear leadership that they've applied to school reopening.



Saturday, August 15, 2020

RI: Foxes In The Governor's Mansion

I haven't paid much attention to Rhode Island (motto: That State Nobody Pays Much Attention To), but we should all take a look, because Rhode Island has become yet another example of the many ways that privatizers and profiteers get their hands into the cookie jar.

These frickin' people
We start with Gina Raimondo, a venture capitalist who decided to get into politics via the office of state treasurer. Her signature move in that office was to "fix" the state pension fund problem by taking an axe to it, in much the same way that you would "fix" the problem of not having enough gas to get to the hospital by deciding to drive to the house on the corner of your block instead. Also, she decided to direct a bunch of those pension funds to hedge funds of her own (generating lots of fees for the Wall Street crowd). Her play was backed by EngageRI, a dark money group that pumped $740K into a pension "reform" campaign; the donors were kept secret, though the WSJ determined that John Arnold had pumped anywhere from $100k to $500K into it. Arnold is not a resident of Rhode Island; he's just a guy who "retired" at age 38 from ENRON and went on to become a major funder of pension attacks in this country. And he has many friends.

From that promising start, she leapt into the governor's mansion in 2014, and stayed there in 2018. She's been a good friend to the charter school industry, as well as the folks on Wall Street, who kicked in big time to help finance her campaign. She ran with Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee, a huge charter school fan as well. Raimondo called education the "number one priority" for her second term. That has included the takeover of the schools by state government, as well as draining public education funding in order to grow pet projects like an expansion of charter chains like Achievement First. The takeover of Providence schools is, by many accounts, a last ditch effort to rescue a failing district, but it puts the schools under the control of education commissioner Angelica Infante-Green, a professional bureaucrat, administrator and education disruptor whose only classroom experience is Teach for America and whose edu-boss background includes working in New York State's department under reformster John King. State takeovers have a lousy record and go badly for many reasons (including putting the schools under the control of bureaucrats with no real school experience); in this case, complaints started almost immediately that community voices were being shut out and ignored.

Rhode Island already has a friendly atmosphere for privatization. They passed a law years ago that basically lets any mayor open up charter schools run by "municipal leaders," and charter school enrollment has passed the 10,000 student mark (out of a little under 150K in the state). It's a good setting for a governor who wants to disrupt the hell out of public education. And I almost forgot to mention--she's nominally a Democrat.

But that's just the governor. Let's talk about her husband.

Andy Moffitt is yet another of those people who has collected a wide web of privatizing connections. For starters, he was law-school roommates with Cory Booker (Raimondo later tapped a Booker staffer for her own administration). Moffitt is often portrayed as a "former teacher" in the press; three guesses what his actual teaching background consists of. Yup-- another TFA-hatched education expert.

Moffitt put that expertise as an education guy at McKinsey, the globe-spanning consultant firm that has made a living privatizing all manner of things and helping cities find ways to dismantle their public systems. They've helped fund cyber schooling. They keep pushing the computerized classroom. They beat Eli Broad to the idea of embedding their own people in the LA school district. They tout data analytics. They once hired David Coleman. Read Anand Giridharadas's Winners Take All to get a feel for just how inhuman and amoral McKinsey's approach can be.

Moffitt has written a book,  too. Actually, he co-wrote it, teaming up with Michael Barber, the head of Pearson, the media company that aspires to eat all of the education world and most especially the data therein. Barber is also a McKinsey alum; the book is one of the series touting Barber's Big Idea-- Deliverology. Moffitt co-authored Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Education Leaders. Deliverology is a technocratic, arrogant, hubris-infused, data-worshipping nightmare of a management system. I am not going to read the book for you; just the table of contents is enough to convey how little it has to do with actual education and how much it has to do with turning a school into a data-generating algorithm-directed system that values things like "rigor" and "capacity" the human lives of its meat widgets. Pearson and McKinsey share aa deep and abiding love for Big Data. Moffitt now teachers a course about "strategic management" for Harvard's reform-loving Graduate School of Education.

Moffitt was also a board member of Stand for Children Leadership Center around 2011, 2012, which would have been shortly after the legitimate child advocacy group transformed into an astro-turfed, union-busting, Common Core pushing, privatizing, board-seat-buying, advocacy group.

While political opponents of Raimondo occasionally question the First Gentleman's privatizing inclinations and his influence, most of his press coverage is the kind of light-weight puff that first ladies are subject to. That's unfortunate, because he is a scary guy to have such a direct line to a governor who is pretty scary in her own right.

At the moment, Rhode Island's education system and the people who lead it are mired in the same pandemess as the rest of us, but if I were a parent or public school teacher or taxpayer there, I'd be concerned about the future of my public education system. These are the kinds of folks that see dollar sigs and data stacks (that can be turned into more dollar signs) and do huge damage with their imaginary educational expertise. Good luck to you, Rhode Island.



Wednesday, August 12, 2020

MI: Mobile Billboard Stalks DeVos

Protect Our Public Schools is a group of retired teachers and other stakeholders working out of Livonia, Michigan. While their reach may not be large nor their pockets deep, they have come up with a fun way to demand Betsy DeVos's attention.


While demanding that public schools be open and full this fall, DeVos herself has been working remotely from one of the family mansions. POPS has been calling attention to that, at least in Michigan, by hiring a mobile billboard. It's technically a truck with three giant LED screens, and they're taking it on a tour of Michigan, with special stops in Detroit for US Senators as well as the Trump campaign.

The messages on the screens are pretty direct:

Secretary DeVos: Stop hiding in your mansion. Start protecting our kids.

No plan. No funding. No experience.

The truck (well, another truck with the same messages and sponsored by POPS) also made a tour of Washington, DC where it sat outside the Department of Education for a while. The cost was reportedly around $15,500. The group has a publicist

Michigan news outlets were unable to get a response from the secretary, but when Newsweek asked, USED press secretary Angela Morabito shared a few thoughts:

This is not news; it's a cheap ploy to get attention, and Newsweek is taking the bait. Instead of reporting what's on a billboard, look at the facts.

POPS vice-president and former teacher Ellen Offen has been handling the press, with criticism centering on the DeVosian lack of leadership and the mandate to open schools without any help in developing a plan to do so safely (and while simultaneously demanding that students should be able to get their education anywhere).

The billboard is currently continuing its tour of Michigan, culminating, they hope, with some time spent circling a DeVos private home. It will be in Grand Rapids on Thursday and Holland on Friday. Here's a look at the truck in action, courtesy of Detroit's WDIV channel 4.




You can find POPS on Facebook. Meanwhile, just so you know, mobile billboards like this are available for rent in cities all acros the country. Just saying, that if you're looking for a fun project... For further inspiration, here are some pictures from the truck's visits so far.








Tuesday, August 11, 2020

AEI: Previewing New Reformy Rhetoric

Over at AEI, Robert C. Enlow and Jason Bedrick have some thoughts for new, improved rhetoric for pushing school choice. It's worth a look to see where the argument is headed in the year ahead.

Enlow is the president/CEO of EdChoice (formerly the Milton Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice). Bedrick is the director of policy at EdChoice, as well as a scholar the Cato Institute.

Given their background and affiliation, there is no surprise with their kick-off premise, which is that conservatives should still keep choice at the heart of their education agenda. This is framed as a resolution to the tension between choice and accountability, which has indeed always been a problem with reformster rhetoric--it's hard to create a world in which schools are held tightly to standards and test-centered accountability but certain schools are also free to do whatever.

Accountability has been doomed as a reformy cause for a while now. For one thing, it has already accomplished the task of cementing the narrative that public schools are "failing," and for another, charters haven't turned out to be any better at the accountability game than public schools. And accountability has always been poison to choice incursion into private schools, which largely have little interest in collecting taxpayer dollars if they have strings attached.

Enlow and Bedrick have three specific suggestions for rhetorical changes in how to frame the debate (and they are remarkably in line with the rhetoric used by Betsy DeVos).

First, replace "school choice" with "educational choice."

Way over the right, this has always been the dream--not choosing between public schools and charter schools, but letting families shop at a smorgasbord of edu-busineses vending a variety of edu-products. The dream is to make the entry requirement for getting into the edu-biz market as low as possible, so let's dispense with the model of a "school," and get on to selling education wherever, however. Enlow and Bedrick offer a good, old rosy-glassed libertarian vision of the benefits:

Importantly, these options allow families to pursue classical education, a content-rich history and civics curriculum, and more rigorous curriculum generally where these opportunities are otherwise lacking.

These options also allow families to avoid all of these options. And, of course, the options are only going to be available if someone decides it's worth their while to offer them.

Second, ditch "failing schools" for "the right fit."

Here's something they get right:

Predicating eligibility for choice programs on district schools’ test scores needlessly pits families and choice advocates against educators and schools. 

If there's anything I don't miss from a decade ago, it's the endless drumbeat that schools are terrible because they are filled with terrible teachers and therefor students must be plucked from these hellholes (with hellishness measured by a single bad, narrow standardized test). If you miss that routine, you can still get it from Jeanne Allen at the Center for Education Reform, or any Trumpist on Twitter.

Picking at the low-hanging fruit has been a reformy tactic for a while, from plans like a state-run district that takes over the bottom 5% of schools to states that offer voucher program aimed specifically at students in low-wealth communities and low-score schools.

The "right fit" approach, beloved by Betsy DeVos for a while, opens the market stem to stern. Under this theory, even a wealthy student at a high-rated school might still need some school choice in order to find her "right fit." This angle also allows choice to include religious private schools more easily, a DeVos goal for ages.

Then there's this:

The “failing schools” paradigm also makes choice only about providing equity for the disadvantaged rather than systemic change. Equity is certainly important—it is a matter of justice—but significant improvements will require large-scale changes in how education is delivered.

Since the beginning of the Trump/DeVos administration, reformsters have wrestled with the schism between social justice reformsters and free market reformsters. AEI and EdChoice are solidly in the free market camp, which believes in its heart that the market should decide which schools are "failing" and which are not, that, in fact, the definition of "failing" should be "not selling enough product to be financially viable."

I have huge problems with the "right fit" framing, because it adapts easily to the systemic preservation of inequity. It fits all too easily with the classist notion that everyone would be so much happier if they just settled into their proper place in society. This No Excuse Academy might follow oppressive policies that emphasize compliance and subservience that no rich white parents would ever tolerate, but hey, it might be just the "right fit" for some of Those People's Children. And Our Lady of Perpetual Motion can go ahead and reject any of Those People's Children because, well, this school just wouldn't be the "right fit" for them.

I have no doubt that some folks will adopt this language with nothing but good intentions. But racists, classists, and those who think inequity is The Way Things Should Be can adopt this language without blinking an eye.

From "top-down" to "bottom-up."

This is the least-new part, and is simply a restatement of the idea that schools should be driven by market forces, or as the essay puts it, "True accountability is when service providers are directly accountable to the people who bear the consequences of their performance."

Well, schools are not "service providers" or Uber drivers or taco stands, and the free market remains a bad match for public education. Enlow and Bedrick are correct in arguing (as teachers already had argued for years and years and years) that the single high-stakes test messes up the system; it's nice to have them on board, as outfits like AEI had previously argued that the Big Standardized Test was a necessary part of the free market, informing the decisions of parents.

This part is complicated. How will parent decisions be informed? The free market does not foster superior quality; it fosters superior marketing. How many tax dollars do we want to see funneled into marketing campaigns? What do we say to parents whose children are rejected for not being the "right fit" with the brand? What will the market offer to students who are rejected by all the vendors as  not the right fit, aka too much trouble and expense to educate? When has a free market sector ever focused on serving every single customer? In the free market, you can win by avoiding high quality and shooting at the middle (eg Walmart) or you can shoot for quality and aim at only a limited number of customers (eg pick your favorite super-expensive home sound equipment).

I have written a ton about the free market approach to education (like herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) but the short form is this-- I don't think the free market is inherently evil or bad (though lately it has suffered from some very bad actors); I just think it's incompatible with a system intended to fulfill the promise of a free, quality education for every single student. That bad fit is made even worse when you treat parents as the only stakeholders with a say, blocking out all community members and taxpayers who don't have children.

What the free market does well, besides fostering great marketing, is pick winners and losers, both among vendors and customers. Parents would be just as "empowered" as the market chose to make them, and they will have access to just the choices they are offered.

These three rhetorical twists are offered by the authors as a way to promote choice, but they don't strike me as making the argument any more convincingly than the old rhetoric. DeVos seems to like them, though, so I guess we'll be hearing them for a little bit longer.