Educating the Unreadable Heart

The ongoing debate about teaching about race and history is a reminder of one of the fundamental challenges of education in a free society-- we may want to reach hearts and minds, but we can't read them.

The twins just turned four, and we are at one of the magical stages of childhood-- the Lie Your Tiny Ass Off stage. It's not that they are morally or ethically impaired, exactly. It's just that they've learned that there are "correct" answers to certain questions. If I ask, "Did you wash your hands," they know that I'm looking for a "yes." So why not give me what I want? They just haven't quite grasped yet the value of making their words correspond to reality.

Most humans catch on soon enough, but that basic skill never leaves them. 

Most, if not all, teachers want to influence young hearts and minds, not just program some correct answers into young humans. But you can never be absolutely sure you've accomplished it. That's why when people start throwing up their hands and wailing about how teachers are indoctrinating children, teachers are thinking, "I just spent a month trying to convince students that Ralph Waldo Emerson isn't stupid, and I'm not sure it went all that well. I'm not sure I'm the one to convince them to reject all the values they've picked up at home." 

In a classroom where one particular idea or value is clearly preferred, the learning most likely to occur is learning to give the "correct" answer in response to any prompt. The more clear you are on what answer is "correct," the less certain you can be that students actually believe what they are saying or writing. 

My old school, like many, had a Prom Promise program in which students signed a pledge not to drink on Prom night; a signed pledge got them trinkets like free pens and an entry into a prize drawing. One of my students observed that it was mostly about making adults feel good because they'd received those promises, and students meanwhile felt no compunction about going back on the pledge they'd made in exchange for a cheap bribe.

It's not nefarious dishonesty; it's just giving grown-ups what they want. But if we're not careful, we unintentionally teach some lessons not about race or history, but about how the game is played. 

All we have as a tool for assessing what is in hearts in minds are various forms of outward behavior, from picking a correct answer from four options on up to constructing a complex essay. This is one of the central tensions in a classroom-- a teacher trying to design a set of hoops to jump through that will separate those who have really learned from those who really haven't, and students trying to find the easiest way to navigate those hoops. 

This is why openness matters in a classroom. If students learn in September that they will get slapped down quickly for saying the wrong thing, they'll stop trying to understand or absorb or grapple in any honest way with the material, and they will focus instead on the central problem of "what does the teacher want me to say." If a student can't say X in your classroom, you will never have a productive conversation about X.

This is also, I think, why teachers sense that engagement is important. The "what does the teacher want" question is skin deep; it keeps the whole subject at arms' length; real thinking actually gets in the way. Student engagement means more involvement of the hearts and minds that we're trying to reach, and that means it's just a bit easier to read the unreadable.

Insisting on one single simplified view of a topic in a classroom isn't just a barrier to critical thinking; it's also a guarantee that whatever effect you hope to have on those hearts and minds, you are getting in your own way. If you believe those smiling faces all telling you exactly what to hear, well, I know a couple of four year olds who would love to tell you about how they washed their hands.

PA: Alert! New Attacks on Public Schools Happening Right Now

If you're a taxpayer in Pennsylvania, make some time to contact your Senator today. Two bills are reportedly being fast tracked, and both represent real threats to public education.

SB 1 is a long wonky slog to read through involving changes in the established school operation rules, but here are the concerning parts. 

Under Section 7.1, we find Section 1717.1-A which establishes a Public Charter School Commission. The commission's purpose is "to act as an authorizer of high-quality public charter schools throughout this Commonwealth." 

The commission will have 7 members, all politically appointed, and it will have the power to impose a charter school on any community, regardless of what the taxpayers of that community and their elected representatives have to say about it. Taxpayers will be forced to pay for charter schools they never asked for, about which they have no say, and which is not accountable to them.

The bill also cranks up the cap on Pennsylvania's tax credit system. That's the deal where wealthy folks or businesses can give money to private schools (via "scholarship organizations") as a substitute for paying taxes. These systems generally have a cap, because every contribution made creates a corresponding gap in state revenues. Currently the cap is $185 million; the bill proposes to up that to $300 million. And under the bill, if at least of 90% of those tax credits are used, the cap goes up by 25%. Per year. Which adds up to even huger amounts fairly quickly.

There are other odds and ends. A local school board must, when approving a charter, must make it good for at least three years. School districts, IUs and community colleges must provide testing space for cyberschools to do their Big Standardized Testing. And there are some bits that require charters to be a bit more transparent than has historically been the case. 

SB 733 is a brand new bill with brand new language, and it wants to establish the "Education Opportunity Account Scholarship Program for Exceptional Students."  It's a retread of the same stuff we've seen before here and elsewhere, and it uses the standard tactic of aiming the ESA at students with special needs.

Like any ESA, the bill proposes to set up an account that the state loads with money and hands off to the parents, as in a debit card. Parents have to promise to use the funds for the usual list:  tuition and fees, textbooks, tutoring, buying some curriculum, cyberschool, testing, therapy, computer hardware and software. The  fun extra twist here-- money can also be put into a 529 account (savings for college), college tuition costs, or "fees for account management by private financial management firms." Left over money keeps rolling over until the student is 26.

A big issue with ESAs is always accountability. Are the parents using the money as they promised, or buying cosmetics? Are the providers actually qualified and capable, or just grifters cashing in? This bill calls for "random audits" of parents annually. As for schools, the bill holds them to some basic regulations and the BS Test, but also the not-unusual hands off clause-- "the department or any other State agency may not regulate the educational program of a participating school or education provider." A school can be barred from the program if they don't provide their contracted services, but there's no mechanism in the bill for determining if they are doing so.  And in the meantime, it's worth remembering that IDEA does not apply to private schools.

Estimates are that this bill could cost taxpayers several hundred million dollars. And you can be sure that the plan is to expand it. 

Neither bill, it should be noted, says word one about Governor Wolf's stated objectives to stop grossly overpaying charter and cyber schools.

Both bills were put in committee last week and emerged for first consideration yesterday; Harrisburg observers think the bills could be up for a vote tomorrow. Update--as of week's end, the bil;s hadn't passed yet. There is still time to call your Senator.

Which means you need to hit the phones today. Contact your state senator and let him know that you oppose these bills. They're expensive, they draw money from local public schools, and reduce accountability and oversight for taxpayers. This is bad policy and bad bills. 

IN: Voucher Increase To Serve Church, Not Taxpayers

Today's Catholic (Serving the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend) offers an article that gives a good picture of what vouchers really do. After all the rhetoric about choice and free exercise of religion, what are taxpayers really paying for?

Indiana has had a huge voucher program for ten years, and this year, the state budget included a big expansion of the program. The Indiana Catholic Conference lobbied for that expansion, which would "give more middle-income parents the option to choose a faith-based education for their children." Well, yes, because six-figure income families are now eligible.

That emphasis on religious education is the whole point and purpose.* Dr. Joseph Brettnacher, superintendent of Catholic schools for the diocese, lays out the mission:

The most important aspect of the Choice expansion is that more families will have the ability to send their children to faith-based schools, where students can develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ within His mystical body, the Church. Our goals for students are to create disciples of Jesus Christ, help them fulfill their destiny to become saints and reach heaven.

The use of public tax dollars to fund this religious mission is not news in Indiana, where the result of the 2011 law was to send 97% of the voucher money to Christian schools; 66% to Catholic private schools.

The boost works a couple of ways. Indiana has vouchers that used to be tiered by family income; now every body will just get the max amount. They also have a Tax Credit Scholarship program, in which wealthy donors can contribute to funding private schools as a substitute for paying taxes. Tax Credit Scholarship programs typically have a cap, since every dollar put into the program leaves a corresponding drop in state revenue. Indiana will be raising that cap by a few million.

The Today's Catholic article is refreshingly clear. There's no talk here about helping poor families get a better education for their children or the superiority of a Catholic education. Instead, it talks about giving well-to-do families that already intend to send their children to Catholic school "room to breathe." They interview one family that moved to Fort Wayne in order to have access to a Catholic school and is now absorbing the news that they'll be getting more tax dollars to do it. 

“We’re still kind of wrapping our head around it, but we think it will help us to be able to do the other activities they’re interested in – the sporting events, the camps, the extracurricular things outside of school,” Glenn shared.

“I feel like this is going to help us tremendously to be able to do those things more often: go to the zoo, go to the movies,” Glenn said. “We’re excited: This is going to take some of the stress off our shoulders.”

So there it is. Hoosiers are going to pay taxes so that this family can go to the zoo and to the movies, and so that the kids can become saints and reach heaven. 

The diocese has been clear about who to thank: 

Key to the success of the legislation that has opened the doors of Catholic school education to so many, was, Brettnacher mentioned, the work of Indiana Speaker Todd Huston, Rep. Tim Brown, Rep. Bob Behning, Sen. Rod Bray, Sen. Eric Bassler, Sen. Ryan Mishler and Sen. Liz Brown, among others.

Those are the folks who helped insure that Hoosiers would pay for religious education, whether they feel inclined to offer up financial support in the name of that God or not. 

*On Twitter, one commenter pointed out that white flight would like a word. That's fair.

Revisiting Marshmallows (Once Again, Money Matters)

Oh, the Marshmallow Experiment. Some scientists at Stanford thought they had discovered a link between the virtuous characteristics of self-control and deferred gratification and later success. Instead they just demonstrated once again that even fancy scientists can confuse correlation and causation.

In case you slept in that day in Psych 101, here's the basic layout. Put a child and some marshmallows in a room together. Promise the child even more marshmallows if she'll refrain from eating the ones in front of her. Then leave the room. The child's subsequent behavior provides a measure of how much ability the child has to delay gratification. A follow up study released a couple of decades later said, "Look! The delayed gratification kids did well in life!"

Voila! A scientific support for the idea that some children just have a special virtue!

But that was back in the 1970s, and there has been more than enough time for other scientists to say, "Hey, wait a minute." 

One such do-over we've looked at before. A 2012 experiment showed that the child's environment might be more important than any imagined childish virtues. Turns out there' a huge effect related to how well the child thinks they can trust your promise of more marshmallows later.

There is a later study that is also important. It cane out in 2018, but I missed it back then. Tyler Watts (NYU) had doubts, noting that the original study involved just 90 kids, all in the Stanford preschool. Not exactly a large or representative sample. 

So Watts and colleagues restaged the experiment with 900 children who were taken from a broader slice of backgrounds, ethnicity, and parental education.

You will find the results completely non-shocking.

What correlates with the ability to wait for that extra marshmallow? Socio-economic background. 

What correlates with better jobs and earnings later in life? Socio-economic background. 

So once again--the ability to defer gratification is not some special character strength, some inborn virtue that students need to be infused with (either before or after their grit injection). It's just one more sign that growing up comfortably well off makes a difference. Glad we cleared that up.

ICYMI: Board of Directors Birthday Week Edition (6/6)

The Board of Directors turn four this week, if you can believe such a thing. Time flies. In the meantime, here's some reading from this week.

Against Metrics: How Measuring Performance By Numbers Backfires

Not really about education, except that it totally is. One more argument against data-driven lunacy.

Unpacking Nonsense: Knowledge as Commodity

I always feel smarter when I read something from Paul Thomas. As usual, he makes connections between many important ideas, including race, crt, and media literacy.

What HIPAA Isn't

Lots of not-about-education-but-really-it-is material this week, including this handy explainer of what HIPAA really does and doesn't protect.

Our Collective Lesson Plan [On Teachers of Color in This Moment]

Jose Luis Vilson digs deeper into the wave of anti-crt legislation sweeping the country, and what it means for teachers of color.

Stinking Thinking Monetizes Dyslexia

Thomas Ultican takes a look at a bill in California mandating testing for dyslexia. Is any of it supported by research? He has the details.

Know Your State Astroturf Parent/Education Groups

Jeanne Melvin makes a guest appearance at Nancy Bailey's blog to sort out al the new parent activist "grass-roots" groups.

Efficiency is very inefficient

Not really about education but, well, you see the pattern. Cory Doctorow breaking down why we live in a world that praises efficiency, but actual destroys it.

Pittsburgh Media Runs Right Wing Propaganda

Steven Singer looks at how much success the right wing Commonwealth Foundation has had getting Pittsburgh media to treat their baloney like it's real.

Where Communities Go To College

On the Have You Heard podcast, a strong case for learning and teaching close to home.

Inside a bruising battle over a new charter school in Nashville's west side

From Nate Rau at Tennessee Lookout, a look at the trouble that comes when charters want to expand into "markets" where they aren't wanted.

Georgia Board of Education votes to censor American history

George Chidi at The Intercept looks at one more state's efforts to shut down discussion of racism.

More funding shenanigans in Ohio

Jan Resseger has the story of how Ohio's legislature is trying to increase vouchers and privatization while shrinking public ed.

ME: Another Assault On The Church State Wall

Having failed to win popular votes, voucher supporters this year are turning to legislatures and courts to push and expand vouchers, and a lawsuit in Maine is the perfect vehicle for them. 

Maine actually has a voucher-ish law on the books-- if you don't have a high school in your town, then you get tuition paid to a high school elsewhere. Unless, the law says, you want to choose a religious school. 

So here comes the lawsuit. Three families sued the state's commissioner of education over the restriction, using the now-familiar argument that the tuition law  “violates the principle that the government must not discriminate against, or impose legal difficulties on, religious individuals or institutions simply because they are religious.”

As usual, the families are represented by a pair of firms that specialize in this sort of lawsuit. The Institute for Justice specializes in activism, litigation, and legislation; their issues are economic liberty, first amendment, private property and educational [sic] choice. They're a libertarian organization founded by two Reagan-era government guys with a push and seed money from Charles Koch. The other firm is First Liberty Institute, a Christian conservative firm based in Texas. 

When the case was first filed in the summer of 2018, they plaintiffs were hanging their hopes on Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the 2017 SCOTUS case that ruled the state couldn't withhold a playground paving grant from a church. Since then, we've had Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which even more explicitly placed the exercise clause over the establishment clause. 

The First Court of Appeals ruled against the three Maine families, upholding Maine's restriction on using public tax dollars to support a private religious institution. The firms families determined to appeal to SCOTUS. 

That was last October. But yesterday, the 2nd Court of Appeals ruled against the state of Vermont, saying that local districts cannot exclude religious schools from its voucher program. This time it's the Alliance Defending Freedom doing the litigating; this is a right-wing religious outfit that just entered the news by defending a teacher suspended for refusing to follow his district's policy on trans students. ADF's spokesperson says of the Vermont decision, “Today the court powerfully affirmed the principle that people of faith deserve equal access to public benefits everyone else gets,” which sticks with the framing that this is about the rights of parents and not the rights of taxpayers. 

So now the Maine lawsuit folks are feeling like they have some wind in their sails and are hoping SCOTUS will hear their appeal. At this point, it seems realistic to assume that SCOTUS will side with the plaintiffs and further wreck the wall between church and state and trample on the establishment clause. 

That will end poorly for everyone. There are only a few possible outcomes of such a decision.

Proliferation of bad and discriminatory schools. We've already seen this in Florida, where taxpayers fund schools that are aggressively anti-LGBTQ+, as well as schools that teach junk instead of science, turning out citizens, employees and voters whose low-information views of the world become a problem for their community. Or perhaps the good Christian taxpayers of your state will find themselves paying taxes to support a Shariah Law High School. Or maybe your state, like Iowa, will even get its own push for a Satanic High School. 

Taxation without representation. Taxpayers will increasingly find themselves funding schools over which they have no say whatsoever. Taxpayers will retain the power to shut off the spigot; will they look at the voucher system they've been stuck with a vote not to fund it?

Regulation. Perhaps the taxpayers will instead demand accountability, a feature that many current voucher bills and laws work hard to explicitly leave out. An uprising of students who have been discriminated against could lead to a spate of laws regulating private religious schools that take public taxpayer dollars. Personally, this doesn't strike me as the most terrible outcome, but I suspect folks in the religious school biz might disagree,

Government oversight of religion. After the Satanic High School opens or some grifter is caught running a fake religious school or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes to town, maybe it will be time for a government body to certify whether or not the religious school is a legitimate religion. 

Religious folks do, of course, have a right to set up their own schools to reflect their own value systems. They don't have a right to make everyone else pay for it. And it's particularly odious to make people finance a religion that can only (apparently) fully and freely be expressed by discriminating against those same people. But nobody is saying these folks can't choose a religious school; only that they can't choose it at public expense. 

The First Amendment means that the government shouldn't pick winners and losers in the religious sphere; it doesn't mean that everyone should have to finance all religions no matter what. Here's hoping that SCOTUS does the right thing and just lets this case sit where it is. 

Religious Persecution and/or Freedom

In the least surprising news development yesterday, a Loudon County Public School teacher's suspension has now become a lawsuit.

Phys Ed teacher Tanner Cross went to a school board meeting and voiced his opposition to any proposed policy that called for addressing students with their preferred pronouns. "I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it's against my religion," Loudoun County, Virginia, teacher Byron "Tanner" Cross said. For that, he's been suspended from his district in Virginia.

I am not without a small slice of sympathy for the man; the former union president inside me saw the story and immediately wanted to question the wisdom of suspending a teacher for saying they were going to disobey a policy even before they actually had the chance to actually disobey it. "I'm going to be insubordinate," is not quite the same thing as being insubordinate. Though I suppose the public announcement sort of forced the administration's hand.

At the same time, I have to wonder about his position. This is not the first time that religious objections to transexual humans have cropped up, and I am still searching for the Biblical basis for this. Exactly which part of the Christian faith, which teaching of Jesus, requires people of faith to object to trans folks? Cross (and his attorneys) are trying to hedge bets by suggesting the problem is the lying, that telling anything but the unvarnished truth is unChristian. I'm.... dubious. Cross teaches elementary school; I'd like to be there for the days when he blasts kindergartners for talking about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or really, any conversation about movies in which actors pretend to be people who don't really exist. All of those are far more lie-like than calling a person by their preferred pronoun. 

The attorneys (we'll get to them shortly) would like to use this as one more chance to extend the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, a game these folks have been working at for a while. What we keep coming back to is the notion that one can't really fully exercise one's Christian faith unless one is free to discriminate against Certain People. To which I say, if you can't be a fully-exercising Christian without discriminating against someone, you are doing the whole Christian thing wrong. 

Cross's lawyers would disagree. They include Tyson Langhofer and J. Caleb Dalton of Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian advocacy group that was incorporated in 1993 by six right-wing luminaries, including Larry Burkett, Bill Bright, and James Dobson. They are supported by a host of right-wing foundations, including the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation. And they oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, most all LGBTQ+ rights. Their track record is sadly successful; these are the Hobby Lobby lawsuit folks. They have a summer legal training program to get Christian law students whipped up for legal careers; Justice Amy Coney Barrett taught at it.

The group characterizes the district's actions as "unconstitutional" and leans on both the idea that Cross shouldn't have to violate his beliefs (by using pronouns) and also the notion that this is an ideology "that ultimately could harm them." I'm wondering if the same argument could be used by a teacher who wants to thwart the practice of letting armed forces recruiters into schools. 

The suit is a win-win for these folks. Either they can impose more of their own religious beliefs on schools, or they can further break down the whole notion of public education and "government schools." And religious persecution no longer means the persecution of religious folks, but the preservation of their "right" to persecute others.