John Oliver on Critical Race Theory

 I could not have done this any better myself. I don't really have anjything to add, but I don't want you to miss this.

FL: How To Make "Don't Say Gay" Bill Worse

Florida's HB 1557 is a truly terrible bill that clamps down on any mention or discussion of LGBTQ topics though Kansas actually has a worse bill which would forbid any mention of LGBTQ topics of any sort at all. Perhaps that is what inspired the sponsor of the Florida bill to make matters worse.

Last week the bill picked up 15 proposed amendments, most of which were attempts to mitigate the damage that the Don't Say Gay act would inflict. But Joe Harding, a co-sponsor of the original bill wanted to go in a different direction.

The bill originally tempered its requirement that the school must inform parents of anything going on with the student's mental health or well-being by including the note that the bill wouldn't 

prohibit the school district from adopting procedures to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe the disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment or neglect as those terms are defined in s. 39.01

Harding's amendment would add to that--

abuse, abandonment or neglect, as defined in s. 39.01, based solely on child-specific information personally known to the school personnel and as documented and approved by the school principal or his or her designees. The school principal or his or her designees shall develop a plan, using all available government resources, to disclose such information within 6 weeks after the decision to withhold such information from the parent. The plan must facilitate disclosure between the student and parent through an open dialogue in a safe, supportive, and judgment-free environment that respects the parent-child relationship and protects the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of the student.

So. The reasonably prudent person's judgment isn't good enough--there must be documentation specific to this particular child, and the administration has to go on record essentially declaring the parents abuse risks.

Then-- even if they've done all that--the school still has to out the child to their parents within six weeks. But there will be counseling--well, counseling that prioritizes the parents' right. 

In other words, Florida LGBTQ students with difficult family situations would understand that school would also not be a safe place for them to speak up.

This is a truly horrifying awful idea. As others have pointed out, if this becomes a law, LGBTQ children will die because of it. If you're in Florida, for heavens sake, call your elected representative.

Privatization Costs

 We've talked before about Donald Cohen and Alen Mikaelian's book The Privatization of Everything, but it's worth returning to in order to underline yet another point.

One of the arguments often pushed to promote the idea of privatizing, of having government farm out a function to private operators, is that it will be a money saver. But time after time, that turns out not to be true.

The challenge with public services is that there aren't that many ways to get money out of them. Privatizers like the word "efficiency," but that too often translates into either pay less or get less. Schools are a fine example; if you want to make money running a school, there are only so many ways to do it. Pay people less. Reduce the number of people you pay. Reduce the services you offer. 

We see those idea reflected in plenty of school "reform" ideas. We can replace teachers with "coaches" or "mentors," which would cut personnel costs. We can reduce staff by having really super-duper teachers teach thousands of students. We can replace teachers with software. We could get rid of all materials, practices and services that don't contribute to some narrow-but-numerical measure of "success." We can set up schools that don't offer services to (or accept for admission) high cost students. 

Not one of these ideas is about providing a better education for students; they are all about finding "efficiencies," about finding ways to cut the cost of providing the service so that a company can get more money out of it.

I'll say, as I always do, that there is nothing wrong with a business trying to make money. That's part of its basic function. But that basic function makes business incompatible with the running of public services.

There is another related problem, most visible in education-- the amateurism problem. Companies look at a sector like education, and because they don't know the sector well at all (except that, of course, everyone went to school, so everyone is an expert) so they look at it and go "Surely there are inefficiencies we can squeeze to get profit." They assume that there must be a lot of change under the couch cushions, but they've never been in the living room and they don't even know if there IS a couch. I have no doubt that many folks singing this refrain really believe it--but they simply don't know what they're talking about.

The results are chronicled in several privatizing stories in the book. There's the tale of Indiana toll road. Private companies said, "We can totally make a profit with those," and instead they tanked. Then-Governor Mike Pence decided, because reasons, that rather than take the road back, he'd resell it someone else who decided that rather than eat the costs that had given the previous company terminal indigestion, they would raise rates and pass the costs on to the traffic (creating a "shunpike"-- a road that people avoid-- we're trying a similar project in Pennsylvania).

That trick of passing on costs is a common feature of privatization. The book was my first encounter with the forces working to keep taxpayer-funded weather information away from the public. Instead of a weather service app for free, with have a variety of weather "services," all using the weather service data, but "giving" it to us via a commercial enterprise. The added value for users is zero, but the companies have to generate some income somehow. It's a model similar to the rules forbidding the IRS from letting us file income tax without working through some pricey "service" like TurboTax.

Privatization is never cheaper. Municipalities that have sold off their parking systems have screwed the public. Chicago sold off its parking for a $1.7 billion contract for 75 years; the buyers realized a $500 million profit in just 11 years. Imagine just how much cheaper parking could have been in Chicago. 

"Business can do the job cheaper," simply turns out to be wrong, time after time. Business either reduces the idea of what the job is supposed to be (in a privatized education world, the job is no longer to educate all children) or they simply throw out the "cheaper" part (note the shift in the school choice world from "we can do it cheaper" to "we need to be paid more"). 

ICYMI: Van Gogh Edition (2/20)

Yesterday, as our Valentine's Day outing, the CMO (Chief Marital Officer) and I went to see the Van Gogh immersive art thingy, Pittsburgh edition. Much of what I know about Impressionism I learned by reading my daughter's college papers, because she is the art whiz in the family. It was an unusual and beautiful experience. Very cool.

The reading list is a little short this week, but still worthwhile. Remember to share the pieces that speak to you.

This Guy Is Going To Take Over Georgia's High Ed System

Actually, this piece from Mother Jones calls Sonny Perdue a "know-nothing MAGA stalwart." A reminder that even though some politicsy stuff is boring, it matters a whole lot.

Florida pulling books off shelves

The 74 takes a look at the spreading book banning going on across the nation.

An Open Letter To Parents Who Wish To Ban My Books

Author Bill Konigsberg has been the subject of several book bannings; here he writes a response to one particular attack on his work. This is well done.

To Fight Attacks on “Critical Race Theory,” Look to Black History

The Nation takes a trip through history to show how Black educators have dealt with this kind of stuff in the past.

A Teacher's Wish

Steven Singer has a birthday wish, a wish to change just one thing that would lead to a host of positive changes in education (and I agree with his choice).

How Big Businesses Are Colonizing the Classroom

 

From Jeff Bryant and Velislava Hillman for The Progressive, a look at how some education programs are being co-opted by businesses to make more meat widgets.

Who gave $184 million to Hillsdale College

Schools Matter took a look at a Hillsdale Form 990, and boy does that raise some questions about the support for this uber-conservative school, soon to be a major player in Tennessee charter schools.

School Board Members Get Threats

Reuters put three reporters on this story which gives a broad and deep look at the kind of crap that school board members have to put up with these days. It's not pretty.

This 16-year-old wanted to get the COVID vaccine. He had to hide it from his parents

In the midst of all this noise about parental rights, it's important to remember stories like this one from NPR.

Why Pre-K does not have lasting effects

A researcher from Vanderbilt writes about a different way to view competencies in the littles. Posted by the good folks at Defending the Early Years. 

At this Portland school, what teachers want is for children to feel joy again in learning

Hey, it's an encouraging story about a school managing to hold true to its actual mission.

Honesty in the Time Of Covid

Nancy Flanagan looks around and sees stuff and then turns it into words; she has a real gift. She and her husband were positive for Covid last week, and she has some thoughts about that.

Finally, I'm going to plug two columns I wrote for Forbes, mostly because they took a chunk of time. But if you want to look at a state-by-state rundown of where teacher gag laws have been enacted and where they are currently pending (with links), I have that for you, as well as a look at what separates the bad from the worse.

MySpace and What Corporations Really Want

 This is an old story, but a revealing one. I missed it at the time, but it's worth revisiting.

Back in 2016, Time Inc acquired Viant, an ad tech company--and that was mostly exciting because back in 2011, Viant had purchased MySpace. 

If you are of a Certain Age, you remember MySpace as a visually alarming website created for fledgling bands to share their stuff, but which morphed into a -proto-Facebook social media space. It triggered all sorts of relationship drama, as users could select friends to put in their top eight spaces. Facebook soon obliterated it, but it has never really died and has changed hands a few times. These days, it's a music and culture site. 

But in 2016, Time's CEO got some chuckles by admitting that he had never even looked at the website before he bought it. But here's the quote that really matters:

The whole point of MySpace is it gave you permission to reach 1.2 billion people. You combine that with the permissions Time Inc. has from its audiences: We reach 250 million adults in the US. We basically reach 80% of the adults anyone is trying to reach with the permissions that we have to reach them and track them and follow them, so MySpace has really been all about permissions.

Permissions and data--that's the commodity being bought and sold.

And that's why corporate interest in accessing the K-12 market remains high-- schools represent a highly desirable demographic that is hard to get to. Data about them, and permission to push messages out to them--those are highly desirable commodities, and school systems remain really dumb about managing access to them. When you think about it, it's kind of amazing that schools pay companies for the chance to let them come in and collect the stuff; it's like an oil company charging you money so that they can drill and pipe oil out of your property. And that's before we get to the need to protect the privacy of minors.

While some edu-tech companies may well get into the business with best, most noble intentions, most of them are going to be bought, and among the most valuable assets they will have are permissions and data. If schools want to get their heads in the 21st century, thinking about protecting digital access to their students would be a great place to start. 

TN: Another Bad Library Law

Tennessee is working on another example of performative nothingburger legislation.

SB 2407 is entitled the "Age-Appropriate Materials Act of 2022." This two and a half page gem is Governor Lee and the legislature GOP's attempt to get some traction over the rising panic over books.

The substance of the bill is as simple as it is thin. Each school must have a list of materials in the school library, and the list must be posted on line. The school must also have a process for accepting complaints about materials, and a process for regularly reviewing the materials in the library to make certain that the materials are appropriate for the "age and maturity levels" of the students as well as "suitable for, and consistent with, the educational mission of the school."

Yes, right now, all over Tennessee, school librarians and teachers are slapping their foreheads and exclaiming. "Age appropriate!!?? Golly whonkers, but I'd never thought of that!" Not to mention the librarians saying, "Yeah, a list of the stuff in the library. Never thought of that."

The bill offers no guidance or direction on how to define "age appropriate," leaving that definition entirely up to the local district.

That means that Governor Lee and the legislature can look like they're getting really tough on Naughty Books, without actually having any of the tough calls that land you in the news. 

And while I respect the fact that, for once, they've actually built in some respect for local control, they ultimately could have achieved the same effect by just not passing any law at all. Just a little "We know local districts are able to manage this" or maybe a nudge letter from the state ed department saying "If you don't have a policy for book challenges, you need to get one." But that wouldn't let the folks in Tallahassee look like they were being all tough on naughtiness. 

Will this create the kind of annoying busywork that so many of these transparency bills involve? I don't know how things are in Tennessee, but I know plenty of schools where the only step needed would be to add an interface with the school's card catalog program to the school website, and everything else is already in place. No, I think this bill is just some pointless puffery, a way to say to Moms for Liberty et al "Hey, we did something about this!"

Things Milton Friedman Got Wrong

I've been reading some Friedman lately, trying to refamiliarize myself with the intellectual granddaddy of education privatization. I'm fascinated by Libertarian thought, because I think they get some things really right, but it's canceled out by the things they get terribly wrong, and it was the wrongness that jumped out at me from some of Friedman's words. And yes, he's a major figure in economics and I'm a retired English teacher, but if economists can pretend to be education experts, well, then...

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.

The great stumbling block of Libertarianism is dealing with racism. As demonstrated in a gazillion different ways from lunch counters to real estate, the market may not care what color people are, but racists operating in the free market care a great deal. Our history is filled with racists being compelled to stop behaving badly by force, and I've never heard a Libertarian offer a convincing explanation of how an unregulated free market would have solved issues like slavery and segregation, nor of how to create a school choice system that does not empower racists and segregationists.

Just as importantly, while the free market may not care what color people are, it cares very much how rich or poor they are. The free market is very good at picking winners and losers--not just among operators, but among customers as well. It is hard to make a lot of money providing goods and services to poor people, and with very few exceptions, the free market prefers to offer poor folks either low quality options or no options at all. The free market is not a good tool for providing poor folks with health care, mail delivery or education. 

Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property.

This raises more questions than it answers. What, for instance, do we do with contracts between individuals and corporations? And then there's that word "crimes." Crimes are defined by the folks in power; Jim Crow laws were actual laws. Libertarians seem to have a working definition of real crimes (Friedman, like many Libs, didn't think smoking weed was a real crime), but they're awfully fuzzy. A crime against a person covers what, exactly? Physical injury? Emotional injury? Limiting one's freedom? That one sounds good, except that if I'm poor, that limits my freedom considerably. However, being poor comes in the category that many Libs would call "your own damn fault" and therefore not a real crime. But if being poor is your own fault, then all the injuries to your freedom that come from being poor are also your own fault. Also, if you have no property, then that type of crime has nothing to do with you. The more one looks, the more it appears that government's function is on a sliding scale--the less wealthy you are, the less government is supposed to help you.

The problem with a sliding scale of government service is that it doesn't help much with education and schools; in fact, it pretty much mimics how the free market deals with schools-- good stuff for those who can pay, and subsistence junk for those who can't, with the lower end of the scale always looking for one more corner to cut in order to squeeze out a bit more ROI. 

There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

This is a good summary of why a critical public service like health care or education should not be handled by business. Imagine a school where the leaders' philosophy is "Job One is making money for Educorp. Never let trying to educate these kids get in the way of that." Imagine sorting students (including admitting and expelling them) based on how they affect Educorp's bottom line. 

Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

This belongs to that family of quotes where it seems like he's on the verge of getting it. Because concentration of power is a threat to freedom--but government is not the only place that such a concentration can occur. Business and corporations can also gather enough power to be a threat to freedom as well, and wealth will always attract and form men of a different stamp. And when wealth and power become great enough to capture the power of the government, we have another set of issues, and arguing that the wealthy free marketed their way to this kind of power fair and square doesn't negate their threat to freedom.

The key insight of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it.

Yes, but-- one way to game this system is to drive one party down down down until they can "benefit" from a crumb. "Voluntary" is a fuzzy idea here. If you have engineered a person's choices to the point that they're choosing between crumbs and starvation, then you get a bargain and their "voluntary" choice is not very voluntary at all. 

Education spending will be most effective if it relies on parental choice & private initiative -- the building blocks of success throughout our society.

"Effective" is doing a lot of work here, but since Friedman believes that taxes should be cut often, for any reason, it seems his effective school would be a cheap one. But he's forgetting a third building block of success--coming from a family that has wealth. That building block is, unfortunately, already well wired into public education, but since the free market values it a great deal, it's unlikely that free market schooling would do anything about it. 

We need a system in which the government says to every parent: "Here is a piece of paper you can use for the educational purposes of your child. It will cover the full cost per student at a government school. It is worth X dollars towards the cost of educational services that you purchase from parochial schools, private for-profit schools, private nonprofit schools, or other purveyors of educational services. You may add from your own funds to the voucher if you wish to and can afford to.

Almost seventy years later, privatization fans like the Mackinac Center argue that Friedman's idea would be the antidote to things like collapsing schools in which students can hardly be expected to learn. This makes no sense. We'll still have the same public schools we have now--only they'll have even less money to maintain the facilities. Wealthy people will have a taxpayer-subsidized chance to attend the private school of their choice, and those of you who can't "add from your own fund" will settle for what you get. And, of course, these private schools hoovering up public tax dollars would be free to segregate and discriminate as they wish, giving some students even fewer choices. 

There will always be parts of Libertarianism that make sense to me; I am, for instance, a great respecter of government's ability to really screw things up. I also like freedom a lot. But the free market and freedom are not synonymous or even, in some cases, compatible, and the free market certainly doesn't provide high quality for all, nor does it provide any sort of restraint on certain brands of human misbehavior.