If You Follow This Blog By Email--Important Alert

If you are a regular email subscriber to this blog, please note that the current system will go dark in July. E-mails from the Curmudgucation Institute will just stop arriving.

If that prospect makes you sad (and why wouldn't it), help is already here. In the right hand column, you'll find a new widget for collecting e-mail subscriptions (and adding to RSS feeds, just for good measure). Sign up for that, and all will be as before (actually, I suppose for a while you'll get double emails). 

And if you have never followed the institute by email, well, now's a great time to start. Join the party.

Does The Nation's Report Card Have A New Reading Problem

Chester "Checker" Finn has concerns about the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), the folks who bring us the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), aka The Nation's Report Card, aka that Big Standardized Test that periodically fuels massive freak outs about the Youths and their Learnings.

Finn recently expressed concern over a "gag order" placed on the group by the chair, Haley Barbour, former Mississippi governor and RNC chair, which is a legit concern for any such body. This week he's worrying about a shift in the framework for reading assessments, both because it will interrupt the stream of consistent data and because there's some concern handling the issue of background knowledge and the socio-cultural context of reading, and this leads to a host of the usual debates surrounding reading tests.

None of this is new. What is reading exactly? What you believe shapes how and what you test. If you think, as the Common Core years encouraged us to, that reading is some set of discrete skills that somehow exist in your brain separate from knowledge etc, then you want to design tests in which knowledge doesn't matter, so, for example, giving third graders reading passages about ancient Turkish trading history or some other topic on which you can expect all students to be equally ignorant. If you think reading is basically decoding, you design extreme tests like the DIBELS test where students are required to decode nonsense syllables. If we drift to the end of the pool that's all about comprehension and higher order thinking, then it's hard to avoid giving reading tests that are not also thinking and knowledge tests. 

So I appreciate the concerns about reading tests, because the whole issue of trying to peek into a person's head to figure out what they do or don't understand is one of the great challenges of education. But here comes a place where I think I can put Finn and his fellow fretters at ease. Finn quotes a pair of professors from Johns Hopkins and Emery who are concerned about the socio-cultural framework:

“Rather than allowing poor performance to serve as a signal that large knowledge gaps should be fixed through better education,” they wrote in City Journal, “we will simply lower the impact of background knowledge on the reported test performance.... If NAEP follows this route,” they concluded, “its assessment will no longer be a reading test that we can trust to demonstrate where students need more help—and where teachers should focus their efforts.”

Never fear, folks, because the NAEP has never been useful for any of that. 

NAEP has had one primary use--to be fretted over by policy makers who then use it to flog whichever theory they have. It provides a bunch of cold hard data that does not accomplish any of the things data fans believe data can accomplish. Nobody's mind is changed or point proven.

And NAEP certainly doesn't inform the actual work of school districts. I admittedly don't have first hand knowledge of every district in the country, but I'd be very surprised to find any of them sitting down at curriculum planning time and saying, "Okay, let's be guided in this process by NAEP results." And I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are no teachers anywhere in the country depending on the NAEP to tell them where students need more help and teachers should focus their efforts. After all--teachers have the actual students right there in front of them. 

Meanwhile,  we still have to annually explain that "proficient" on the NAEP does not mean "grade level."

Fiddling with the NAEP will create more debating points for policy wonks and legislator staff members, but it won't make much difference in actual classrooms with actual teachers.

Finn goes on to describe what sounds like a horrifying/amazing fight amongst the NAGP members and staff (he calls it a "horror show") which, from out here in the cheap seats, seems like further evidence that the group really has lost any sense of what their mission is and what it means. Perhaps they might want to look around at the skipping of NAEP during the pandemic pause and ask what effect that missing data has had on teaching in this country (spoiler alert: none) and just calm themselves down.

More Koch Ed Privatization

 The Koch Network is getting with the times and launching an edu-reform substack. Yay.

The substack is co-hosted by Lisa Snell, director of K-12 education policy for Stand Together, aka the Charles Koch Institute. Previously she spent 23 years as Director of Education at the Reason Foundation. Her co-host is Adam Peshek, who is part of the same Kochtopus, having arrived Jeb Bush's ExcelinEd (formerly FEE). Peshek also works at Yes, Every Kid, a rebranding of some standard reform ideas. 

Their new platform is called "Learning Everywhere," and so far, they're playing all the hits. "Time to scrap the factory approach to education" is the first... issue? ...post? What are we going to call these substack things?  The subheading is "Individualization, not standardization, empowers learners to thrive," which kind of captures one of the odd whiplashes in the reform movement; I'm betting that while he was at ExcelinEd, Peshek spent a lot of time advocating for the Common Core standards, the one-size-fits-all standardization that Jeb Bush backed right into a conservative buzzsaw. But standardization is no longer where it's at.

The piece starts out with an unintentionally apt story about the Air Force's discovery of the problem with averages. In the early 1950s, the Air Force was having problems with pilots who had trouble flying--turns out that a cockpit built to "average" specs doesn't actually fit anyone, so they changed their approach to cockpit seat design (you can thank this development for the adjustable seat in your car). 

This is meant to be a story about how individualization is the key to everything, and I think it works, but I want to point out that while the Air Force redesigned the seating in the cockpit, they did not redesign how the controls worked, or any aspect of the actual plane. They didn't give every pilot the chance to "shop" for a plane design that they liked, nor did they develop an array of planes designed and built by people who had no actual background or training in aviation or manufacturing. They made it possible to make a few small but useful adjustments. That's it. 

But the writers are ready to move on to another reform trope. The education system is "by and large, out of date and fits only an imagined 'average child."" This will come as news to all the teachers who spend hours differentiating instruction, or the schools that provide various special services in keeping with IDEA. But the writers stick with the notion that schools are a "mass-produced, one-size-fits-all approach" that somehow "matched the needs and mindsets needed to succeed in what was mostly a factory-based economy." There's a lot of bad ahistorical argument going on here, and it's used to set up this sentence:

We live in a time when technology and circumstance require participants in an economy to be nimbler, and we have learned that individualized approaches tailored to personalized needs and interests are far more effective than a standardized model.

There is just so much unsupported assertion here. Which circumstances? What do you mean by "nimbler"? Where did we "learn" about relative merits of approaches, and what "standardized model" are you talking about? More effective how? And what's the evidence for any of this?

The writers also trot out the old "schools haven't changed," and reassert that the "modern, global economy" requires skills that "the original K-12 education system was not designed to foster." What skills are we talking about--the skill of working for less than a laborer in China or India?  "We have not adapted our approach with the times," they cry, and again, I am wondering what specifics are involved here, but that's saved for later in the piece. They do make one clear and concise statement:

Children are not factory-made products, why should we treat them as such?

That's true. Heck, I remember arguing that exact point back when I was opposing Common Core. So my question is, who says that children are factory-made products, and who is treating them as such? Actually, I know the answer to the first question-- "students are product manufactured for our consumption" has been a popular argument from business leaders and reformers. I've never heard it from an actual educator. 

So next we get a history lesson, arguing again that the "factory model" was an actual thing. Did you know the description of schools as a factory model only dates back to 1972? You should read this wikipedia article currently bearing mostly the work of education historian Jennifer Binis. After bringing out the old "100 year old model" trope, the writers cite Diane Tavenner, the creator of the Summit school-in-a-box model (with a little juice from Mark Zuckerberg). There are plenty of reasons not to be impressed by Summit (read the NEPC report "Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money"). But the writers are citing her as an expert on what "kids need for a fulfilled life." 

Tavenner is going to help them assert that complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, people management, emotional intelligence--these are the new skills that employers want (actually, they are the ones that employers say they want, not necessarily the ones they act like they want, but that's a discussion for another day). Boil them down to "innovative thinking, independence, initiative." "These," says Tavenner, "were not coveted skills in our grandparents' time." Really? Horatio Alger, a couple of century's worth of Puritanical exhortations, and my actual grandparents beg to differ.

But there's a huge disconnect in this argument, caught in the last paragraph before the sales pitch starts:

Of course, we’d be foolish to spend our time merely trying to align education to the needs of employers. Education should be about learning for life and – perhaps ideally – getting the foundation, skills, and values to be your own boss (if you want). But the misalignment between employer needs and what our system is focused on producing is worth highlighting.

IOW, we shouldn't let employers drive the education bus, because everyone should be getting the skills to do their own thing and be their own boss, except that employers should totally drive the education bus. Also, let's assume that the whole purpose of education is vocational training.

The solution is, of course, getting rid of public education.

Okay, I'm paraphrasing a lot. They retell the end of the Air Force story, making sure to paint airplane designers as resistant entrenched interests and work their way back to this:

If we want children to soar, let’s not strap them in one-size-fits-all cockpits. Let’s give them better than the current system built on averages and provide for them, instead, models that allow them to discover, develop, and deploy their individual talents.

Except, again, the pilots all fly the regular standardized plane. Except how, exactly, is the current school system "built on averages"? 

Look, "learn everywhere" is a popular slogan with those who want to blast the education system into particles, to have students earn credits here, there and everywhere, perhaps using education savings accounts to pay various edu-vendors. If you listen to folks like Charles Siler, former right-wing advocacy guy, you'll get the impression that this particlization is about getting rid of collectives--not just unions, but parents and students and taxpayers as well, so that they can never form into groups large enough to bother the Charles Kochs of the world. Or maybe it's about the idea of shrinking one more part of the government--public education--so that it's small enough to drown in a bathtub. Or maybe it's about not having to pay taxes to educate Those People's Children--here's a voucher and an opportunity to go shop for your own education products so don't bother us again. You're on your own. 

Maybe it's about a sincere belief that everything this substack says is true. The problem I have with that theory is that so much of it is demonstrably not true that it's hard to believe that anyone doing his or her homework would not see they had some research to do yet. And while it may be unfair of me, given the background of the writers, I don't anticipate this substack being about how to help public schools better develop individualization.

Learn Everywhere may not just be another arm of the privatization kochtopus, but I have giant factory-sized doubts. We'll see what unfolds in the posts ahead.

Elon Musk Buddy Ready To Fix Education And The World

You may recall that Elon Musk started a school a few years ago, because of course he did. It was sort of a private school, sort of the most expensive homeschool project ever launched (Musk has five kids--one set of twins, and one set of triplets, so God bless him and his wife). He was single-handedly funding the thing (almost a cool half-mill a year). And now one of his buds is ready to spin it off and monetize it.

We have seen this process before--launch a boutique private super-school, then spin it off and scale it up into a branded product that provides sort-of-the-same-but-not-really educational experience for a broader range of customers. Max Ventilla, formerly of Google, tried it with Altschool, not entirely successfully. Summit Schools also followed this trajectory, looking to scale up a version of its original edu-product across the country.

Leading the investor bandwagon jumping this time is Anthony Pompliano, entrepreneur and investor and podcaster and investment letter guy, all under the name Pomp. He announced a new round of investment for this plan in his substack-- The Pomp Letter-- under the title "Fix The Education, Fix The World." So we're aiming high here.

Musk's original school was called Ad Astra, then Astra Nova, and will "this game-changing educational program" will be coming "to the masses" under the name Synthesis. After grabbing $1 million in seed money, Synthesis is now looking for a $5 million Series A investment.

So what is Pomp selling? "A weekly, 1-hour enrichment program for students who want to learn how to build the future." Ages 8 to 14, with 6 and 7 year old version coming soon. Students learn through games and simulations. Cost = $180/month. So, roughly $45/hour. 

And who's actually running the thing? Well, the creative director and co-founder is the guy Musk hired to start Ad Astra--Josh Dahn. Dahn was hired away from Mirman School, a private school for gifted children located in Bal-Air. He worked at Mirman for two years; before that he spent two years in Las Vegas as a Teach for America 5th grade gifted specialist (his BA is from Miami University in Philosophy and American Studies). He's teamed up with co-founder/CEO Chrisman Frank, who engineered at ClassDojo for seven years.

Other "facilitators" include one who previously worked in the "national security realm" and "spent over a decade using strategy to combat threats in the domestic and international spheres." A former actual rocket scientist from NASA JPL. An editor of animated feature films. A "data scientist" from Edtech and Lyft. Another rocket scientist. And one actual former teacher, a two time finalist for Illinois Teacher of the Year. 

Also on the team is Ana Lorena Fabrega. POmp touts her as a former teacher, but her teaching experience is four years in a Panama elementary school and a couple of years as a NYU Student Teacher. She lists herself as "Chief Evangelist" for Synthesis.

Pomp is one of those folks who says that schools just teach "rote memorization." He says that "the lack of critical thinking and problem solving skills being taught in our education system should be a national emergency" and "if you want your child to be more proficient and better prepared for the real world" you should hop on board. "It works," he says, providing no evidence that might be used by critical thinkers who are critically thinking about someone who claims he can fix the world with an education-flavored product that involves very few educators and is priced far out of the range of a good chunk of the world that he intends to fix. 

Dahn says that the goal was "to develop students who are enthralled by complexity and solving for the unknown" and that Synthesis aims to "cultivate student voice, strategic thinking and collaborative problem solving" and builds these skills "like no other education experience." 

Frank might be the one guy here with some perspective--he calls Synthesis an "enrichment club" that teaches complex problem-solving and decision making" through "online team games." 

As a pricey online education-flavored game, Synthesis might be fine. But I feel confident that despite one more rich smart guy amateur thinking he knows the secret to fixing education and the world, this is not going to do that. 

Let's Cut Bill And Melinda Some Slack

Warning: this is not really about education, and the title is not ironic snark.

There are some things in life that you just don't get unless you've been there. Divorce is one of them. I've been through divorce school (Motto: You'll learn a lot, but the tuition is really high) and I'm getting that feeling I have every time I see famous people having their marital meltdowns plastered all over the news while everyone tries to dissect the relationship.

Nobody really knows exactly what goes on in a marriage; sometimes even the two people involved are a little fuzzy. That goes quintuple for divorce. I can tell you four different stories about the end of my previous marriage, and every one of them is true (but there's only one that I really believe). 

With a divorce, something has died, and everyone involved--even the person who decided to pull the plug--has grieving to do. The shape and trajectory of your life has changed. Private aspects of your life are pub lic, and public things become private. Some people become softer, more pliable, and some harden and lock in place. Some folks take a long time to sort it all oiut and find a new normal. Some folks have to revise their ideas about "how this is going to work now" on a daily basis. And children complicate everything by a factor of Very Much. And everybody else has an opinion. 

There's a lot of money in play with the Gates un-Gatesing, and in the past we've watched them work out their personal issues by trying to put themselves in charge of the rest of us. And there's a certain sweet schadenfraude in considering Bill Gates as a failure as a husband. 

I'm fully prepared to keep calling the two out for dumb ideas about education and ham-handed efforts to install themselves as a roving unelected bosses of whatever captures their interest. But divorce sucks, for everyone involved, and on top of that, no matter how much we think we know, we are never going to know. So I intend to keep my eye on their public and damaging failures, and leave their private and personal failures alone.

Do Americans Overwhelmingly Hate "Woke" Policies?

You may recall that Parents Defending Education recently burst on the scene as the latest education astroturf, this time tilted hard right. Their battle against "indoctrination" in schools now includes a new weapon--a poll, which they're touting under the headline "Americans Overwhelmingly Reject 'Woke' Race and Gender Policies in K-12 Education." (Have we reached the point yet where "woke" is used like "politically correct"-- only by people trying to denigrate a straw version of the ideas that it supposedly represents?)

There is, of course, a fine art to writing polls, particularly if you're looking for a particular result (and it's fair to both sides that art). "Would you rather lick a toad or kiss an attractive model" becomes "Americans overwhelming dream of making out with famous models--is American marriage in trouble?" And that's pretty much what's happening here. We'll dig a bit deeper into the results in a bit, but lets look at tyhe marquee results that are being blasted across the interwebz.

The top finding is also the most obviously skewed. 

25% said it was somewhat or very important for schools to “teach students that their race is the most important thing about them” compared to 70% who said this is not important or not at all important.

This is presented on a list of things "that administrators... in your area could do." The poll indicates that the items on this list were "randomized"-- it's not clear if that means the order was randomized or (as is the case in another section) that only some of the 804 responders were asked each item. The list does not include anything like "ride unicorns through the playground area," nor does it offer evidence of anyone, anywhere who is actually proposing that students should be taught this.

The next item on the list says that 87% agreed that students should be presented with multiple perspectives and not just one "that the school perceives is correct," which is a hugely leading question, but not a hugely leading as what the pollsters actually asked. Responders were presented with two opinions and asked to state "which comes closer to your own opinion." The choices:

Smith says: Because learning how to think through issues is important, students should be exposed to different opinions for and against an idea. Teachers should provide students with more than one perspective.

Jones says: Because social issues are so important and believing the wrong ideas is so harmful, students should only be exposed to ideas the teacher or the school believes are correct.

Note that Jones says students shouldn't even be exposed to the ideas, thereby guaranteeing that this will come close to what practically nobody believes. Imagine if we rephrased Smith as "Students should be taught all opinions, including those that have been debunked and disproven by experts in field" and Jones said "Students should be exposed to the best, most current thinking on topics." It would cover the same issues--but it wouldn't get PDE the answer they want.

Other top findings. 52% said their local school had increased emphasis on issues of race and gender, and 57% said their local school had become more political. However, only about a quarter of the respondents have children in school. And we later learn that 42% of those do not know whether their school is teaching social, cultural, and race-based topics "in the traditional way" (whatever that is) or not. Only 29 parents believe their child is being taught in the "new way." 29. And yet somehow over 400 people are sure that there's a rising tide of woke-itude in their local schools.

74% are somewhat or strongly opposed to schools teaching that "White people are inherently privileged, while Black people and other people of color are inherently oppressed and victimized." The press release leaves out the word "victimized," which strikes me as a key word triggering a negative response here. This item was only given to 641 of the respondents; meanwhile, only 6.8% of the total respondents were Black. They also tout 88% opposing "assigning white students the status of 'privileged' and non-white students the status of 'oppressed'," --asked only of 491 of respondents but again, where is that happening? What does it even mean--"assigned status." 

The press release marks that 69% oppose schools teaching that "America was founded on racism and is structurally racist," but that's not the whole item in the poll--the whole goes on to include "and that racism is the cause of all differences in outcomes and achievement between racial groups." which pretty much guarantees the answer they're after. 

75% oppose teaching there is "no such thing as biological sex and that people should choose whatever gender they prefer for themselves" makes it into the press release, but the part that charges it up with "and that concepts like male and female are outdated" does not. 

Finally, the press release mentions that 80% oppose "the use of classrooms to promote political activism to students." The actual polling item is more specific asking if schools should "Promote social justice political activism in the classroom by making protest signs and banners, conducting walkouts, and awarding course credit to students who engage in political protests and activism."

There are some items that didn't make the press release, such as  asking if schools should teach "students that the United States was stolen from other people and inform them the school they attend and the houses they live in are built on stolen land." Even with that loaded language, only 56% were strongly or somewhat opposed.

The biases otherwise revealed are unsurprising. The majority of respondents favored capitalism, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (who appears without "Junior"), the Founding Fathers, and local schoolteachers. They do not favor socialism and cancel culture. The most-watched news source that was reported is Fox. 47% conservative vs. 32% liberal.

The poll was conducted by Competitive Edge Research & Communications, a firm that is about polling and PR-- "Our grassroots campaigns seek to influence public decisions by finding supporters and activating them." Their clients include politicians whose campaigns they helped push to victory. 

And if some of the items on the poll seem improbable in a straw man, nobody is actually doing that kind of way, remember that push polling is a thing. Remember that in a push poll the idea is not to measure opinion, but to plant the idea that something is going on. One infamous example would be the push poll in the South that asked "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Thereby pushing the idea that the McCain's adopted daughter was really his love child. 

This PDE poll is a fine example of a poll created to help folks make a point they already intended to make. PDE president Nicole Neily offers this summation in the release:

The results of this poll confirm that the campaign by extremists to transform our schools into political activist training camps is deeply unpopular among Republicans and Democrats alike, with only a narrow sliver of the farthest-left voters viewing ‘woke’ education favorably. This poll is a shot across the bow at those school districts, school boards, state legislatures, and governors who have either implemented ‘woke’ policies in schools or stood by while activists did so. Dividing our kids and communities based on skin color is abhorrent and has no place in America. Those who do so will be held accountable.

Bark loud enough and hope that people will start to believe you're a big dog. But there's nothing here that PDE wasn't already asserting repeatedly. Just some polling numbers to help make it look true.  It's unfortunate, because the issues here are complex, complicated, and requiring a great deal of nuance and understanding of the local picture on the ground. But conservatives are pushing this hard all across the country (perhaps on the theory they need something more base-activating than Joe Biden, and culture wars have never failed them before). We do have a lot of race and gender and class and culture issues to work out; none of what the PDE does here is particularly helpful; just using some astroturfing to shore up political operations.

And meanwhile, at the bottom of the press release, there's PDE's handy form for turning in any indoctrinators that you've heard about in your neighborhood. Don't worry--you can put on your brown shirt anonymously while you nominate someone to be canceled right into a re-education camp.

The Anti-Education Economy

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education asks "Our blind faith in the transformative power of higher ed is slipping. What now?" 

The article looks at the long-time US love affair with higher education, an affair that is one part long-standing respect (of some folks) for more and more education and one part the relentless drumbeat of articles pointing out that college graduates make more money. The favored government fantasy is that more education will result in a better economy, the dream of Smarten Up economics that seems as potent for some folks as the dream of a Trickle Down economy is for others. 

Get an education, get a better career, make more money, lift the economy of the whole nation. Education opens doors, lift boats, leaps tall buildings in a single well-funded bound. 

But for decades, that push has existed in tension with another push--the push to hire people with no more education than is necessary for the least amount of money we can get away with. "It's great that people are getting all this education and training," says business. "But we are working hard to avoid paying for it."

We've seen a steady push to break jobs into small. cheap pieces. Hiring a chef is expensive; let's break food production into simple bits so that we can just hire minimum-wage workers to drop the fry basket and wrap the burger. Craftsmen get a great deal of training and develop a lot of skill and are therefor expensive; let's break the production of this product into assembly-line bits, so that we don't need to pay for a lot of training and skill and craftsmanship.

Break up and even outlaw collective groups that allow educated workers to bargain for better wages and benefits. 

And if that leaves us still paying more for educated workers than we want, let's find cheaper ones. Let's move the jobs to India or China, where educated workers are good enough and way cheaper. Or let's transition to automated robot laborers, who are cheaper still. 

Part of our trouble with the transformative power of higher ed (and all education for that matter) is that it transforms people from low-cost meat widgets into people who deserve a higher wage. So as a country, with one hand we give a big thumbs up to education as an important, necessary thing for every citizen, and with the other hand, we do our best to fend off the requirements of a well-educated labor force. 

We offer as a sop, "Well, if you don't like the wages there, get a better job!" But at the same time, folks are trying to get more of those better jobs to disappear. And now that the treadmill has suffered a pandemic stop and people are, in fact, walking away from crappy jobs, suddenly employers are whinging about it. I get it--at least part of it. The notion of people being supported by taxpayers when they could be working doesn't sit well with me. But at the same time, if your business model depends on people being kept poor and desperate enough that they will settle for your crappy job, that shouldn't sit well with anyone. And really--if your workers are there with you because they're desperate and they've had to settle for your wretched job, that shouldn't sit well with you, either. For the past couple of decades, corporations have elevated the idea that they shouldn't have to consider loyalty to workers or the community that houses them--just cold, hard business decisions. Bottom line. Stakeholder benefits. Now they get to the experience the flip side of what happens when their workers don't consider loyalty, either.

Meanwhile, as it turns out, some businesses have figured out how to lure workers back. You may not be able to get behind this paywall, but I can give you the short answer--pay workers more and treat them better. How is this a mystery?

Teachers have been on the forefront of this assault--break up the unions, strip them of power, and look for ways to "teacher-proof" instruction, so that any low-wage shmoe can open the box, follow the instructions, push play, turn on the computers, and let students consume their education at a low cost. Turn education into a consumer good, so that vendors only have to deal with "customers" one at a time rather than deal with the full weight of all taxpayers holding education-providing institutions to account.

Schools are where that tension keeps playing itself out. Education is important and you need it to better yourself, but at the same time, we are going to do everything in our power to avoid giving you better pay based on that education. 

Let me add my usual disclaimer that profit-seeking businesses are not inherently evil--they just have a certain profit-seeking set of priorities that are not always aligned with what's best for society at large. There are businesses and leaders who get it, but the neo-liberal gospel of "Just let the invisible hand guide everything and things will go great" doesn't cut it. And "blind faith" in education is just another way of saying that if you get more education, someone, somewhere will make things better (so I don't have to). Less faith, more actual support--that would be great.