Read This Series About Hillsdale College and the Dismantling of Public Education

Teaching is our trade; also, I confess, it's our weapon.

That's Larry Arrn, the president of Hillsdale College, the very right-wing Christianist college that has become a major force in the desire of folks who want to take education back from the government (perhaps best exemplified by Betsy DeVos). For these folks, it's not about competition or improving the nation's education base or bringing greater equity to education. It's about tearing down public education and replacing it with taxpayer-funded, private Christian schools.

This three-part series from Kathryn Joyce at Salon is excellent at providing both macro and micro pictures of what this crusade looks like, and how it is unfolding across the country. I strongly recommend that you read it.

PART I: In the full-scale assault on public education, Hillsdale College is leading the charge.

Joyce takes us to Orange County in California, where a "classical academy" led by a charismatic anti-vax physician who's married to the head of the school board. The story of this couple is linked to the rise of Hillsdale, which has gone from a tiny little-known school to a bastion of MAGA anti-public education. I knew that Hillsdale was directly involved in Trump's 1776 Commission. I didn't know they'd once hired Ginni Thomas as a lobbyist.

PART II: Stealth religion and a Trumped-up version of American history

Joyce looks at the curriculum that Hillsdale backs and promotes through their very first charter initiative which, at the time, was touted as an effort "to recover our public schools from the tide of a hundred years of progressivism that has corrupted our nation's original faithfulness to the previous 24 centuries of teaching the young the liberal arts in the West." These folks are not messing around when it comes to the culture wars--accent on the wars part.

PART III: The far right's national plan for schools.

Plant charters, defund public education. Back to Orange County to see how the strategy looks on the ground, as well as looking at what these folks say they really want ("If your child isn't in school, they won't have the money, the unions won't get funded, and those schools will close down.")  Also, a trip to see how this is playing out in other states, including Florida and Tennessee, and some actual encouraging words at the end.

Throughout the series, it's remarkable the degree to which, these days, these anti-public ed folks are just saying it all out loud. Joyce has done a ton of research and leg work and the series lays out just how intent these folks are on dismantling public education as we know it and returning to some sort of imaginary golden age that never existed (and never should have). 

ICYMI: Springtime Edition (3/20)

 Pretty sure it's practically spring, more or less. Not that that means a lot around here, but still, it's nice to mark the seasons. Here's your reading for the week. Lot of paywalls this time--my apologies.

Who's unhappy with schools? The answer surprised me.

The answer probably won't surprise you. But there are some good data here in this New York Times story about how the failing schools narrative is being driven largely by people who don't have actual contact with schools.

Why the school wars still rage

Jill Lepore in the New Yorker provides historical perspective on the parents rights crt freakout that has been erupting every so often for a century.

A school created a homeless shelter in the gym

Hechinger tells a story of an unusual success. Something to make you fell better, for a change.

A "diverse" community needs to hear the truth

Nancy Flanagan with a jaw-dropping story from a not-very-diverse community. Have you subscribed to her blog yet? Because you should.

Michigan Public School Advocates Push Back

Betsy DeVos and friends have one more plan to attack public education in Michigan, and a group has formed to push back.

Schools have cash they're struggling to spend

Schools got a bunch of relief money, but they're having trouble spending it. Matt Barnum at Chalkbeat explains why.

What you should learn in the classroom about expressing your opinion

Paul Thomas has a great piece about opinions in the classroom, and why finding ways to share them is important.

The incredible shrinking TFA

Gary Rubinstein takes a look at Teach for America's diminishing fortunes and explains why it's happening.

College Board warns against censoring its AP courses

Ileano Najarro at EdWeek takes a look at the clash between the College Board and CRT panic states.

Who is the Theranos of education?

EdSurge asks a question with a million answers but settles on just a couple, but they're very deserving. Two high tech edu-scams that have deservedly declined.

A charter school family gravy train finally halted

This story from North Carolina of Torchlight Academy shows how the charter biz can be a great way to make the family a lot of money, for a long time, before someone at the state level finally decides to care.

How progressives won the school culture war--in New Hampshire

Jennifer Berkshire looks at the how and who of the massive defeat of privatizers running for school board seats in the Granite State. 

Being a Good Teacher

Steve Nelson responds to a piece in EdWeek about not having to love your students.

Call Them By Their Name

I was teaching 8th grade at the time, and there were three Sheila's in my class, so I had settled on some combination of last initials, but one of the Sheila's approached me and said, "Could you just call me Andrea?' And I kept a straight face even though she pronounced it "Ahn-DRAY-ah." Because it was clearly a name she had always wanted to be called, and so that was what I called her.

It's not that hard.

I would start the year by reading off the attendance list the office computer spit out, telling students that if I butchered the pronunciation to correct me, and always reading it first name first, not last name first (because take a look at my name and just guess what elementary and middle school years were like for me), and also telling them "If you're given name is Alphonse but you prefer to go by Puddles just tell me." And every year I had several of those, either because of family nick name or personal preference. "Francis" wants to be "Butch." Or "Philomena" wants to be "Bebe." "Elizabeth" won the name lottery and gets her choice of forty-seven different nick names. My own niece and nephew both go by their middle name instead of their first. Whatever it is they want to be called, you ask, find out, and then call them that.

It's not that hard.

I was a yearbook advisor for umpty-odd years (there is no spelling of any name given to a human being that can surprise me any more). Seniors were responsible for selecting and submitting their photo. They would pick the photo they wanted, and attach the name they wanted to go with it. Barring anything obscene or inappropriate (no Nazi t-shirts, please), we would run the picture and the name they submitted.

It's not that hard.

Even my rural-ish conservative-area high school triple checked with seniors to confirm what name they wanted announced as they walked across the stage to collect their diploma. Then, at graduation, we announced that name.

It's not that hard.

I am baffled by teachers who get in a giant tizzy over a refusal to call the student by their preferred name. We already do it all the time. I have yet to come across a teacher who adamantly declared, "Your given name is 'Aloysius' so that's exactly what I'm going to call you" or "Sorry, your full name is William, so I refuse to call you Bill." 

One of the basic building blocks of a functional and effective classroom is respect, and there is huge disrespect-- massive, planet-sized, deserves-its-own-zip-code disrespect-- in telling a student, "No, I will tell you who you are, and you get no say in it." 

Lord knows, all those years ago, I had thoughts about Sheila's desire to be Andrea, but the most important thought I had was that it was none of my business and if she wanted to be called Sir Hiram Patronomicus III then I'd do so. It's not that hard.

And if your response to all this is that it's different, somehow, when a student who was one gender wants to be identified by a name that suggests a different gender, you're going to have to explain it to me slowly, because I'll be damned if I can see how. 

They tell you what their name is. You call them by that name.

It's not that hard.

"Don't Say Gay," shame, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

It appears as a parenthetical comment in a CNN opinion piece by Jill Filipovic and then amplified in an Amanda Marcotte piece at Salon. It's one more reason that the Don't Say Gay bill in Florida is doomed. Look at the heart of the language again:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

As Filipovic points out, heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, and male and female are gender identities.

This law is so vague and badly written, that it outlaws any classroom materials that refer to boys and girls, or that talks about traditional hetero romance. So, every fairy tale would be ruled out. Every reference to boys and girls would be verbotten. And we'd have to do something about those gendered bathrooms. As Marcotte puts it:

In other words, if we read the law literally, it would create the kind of gender-less dystopia that conservatives are always claiming liberals want, where any acknowledgment of maleness or femaleness is erased entirely.

Because gender and sexual identity are baked into most of the experiences we subject littles to. As a well-circulated meme says, folks may be freaking out over LGBTQ for littles, but they'll still ask your toddler son if he has a girlfriend and buy your toddler daughter a "Heartbreaker" onesie. 

The answer from proponents of LGBTQ suppression would, I'm betting, be something along the lines of "Tradition roles and identities are normal, and therefor discussing them with littles is age-appropriate," which dovetails with the old notion that LGBTQ persons are not born, but made--or, for the most paranoid, recruited. 

At least part of the impetus here is anger that LGBTQ persons won't demonstrate any shame over their orientation. "Don't Say Gay" echoes that old nomenclature "The love that dare not speak its name." 

The desire to shame and silence has begun to crop up in ways that would be merely silly if they weren't so damaging. The Mississippi assistant principal fired because he read second graders I Need a New Butt may be the result of localized foolishness, but as Alyssa Rosenberg shows in her Washington Post column, it opens a window on how adults forget to appreciate the value of "gross, rude, and absurd" in children's books and lives. Children have a great deal of exploring to do when it comes to themselves. I have often repeated my belief that education should be the business of helping young humans to become more fully their best selves, to grasp what it means to be fully human in the world.

Delivering to children a message that they should feel shame for having butts would not be a useful tool in helping them grow.

But when you unleash shame in a sort of omni-directional vagueness, there's no predicting where it will land. You come up with bad laws that say "Don't talk about X" when you really mean "Don't talk about X in the wrong, abnormal way." It's one more way of saying "We're not actually against indoctrinatin' kids as long as it's done the right way." This law is like a flipped version of all those times conservatives called for freedom of religion and then got upset with Muslims, Pastafarians, and followers of the Church of Satan exercised it.

And there you are, punching yourself in the face. Here's hoping that when DeSantis signs this bill, as he almost certainly will, it goes straight to the courts, where it is struck down as it so richly deserves to be. 

Do Students Know When They're Learning?

 A pair of experiments at Harvard suggest that students may not be the best judges of how well they're learning. 

A pair of professors split up their introductory physics classes. One half got lectures, and one half got active learning. Then they switched. The professors have a 12 item quiz to measure learning, and also asked students to assess the two types of learning they experienced. The students get better  results after they had done the active learning. But-- they lecture students more strongly agreed with statements like "I feel like I learned a great deal from this lecture" and "I wish all my physics courses were taught this way."

The two professors repeated the experiment the following semester, and found the same results.

There are plenty of caveats here. Harvard freshmen are not exactly a random, representative sampling of students, and a 12 item quiz is not exactly a deep measure of learning. Nor is physics a sample of all kinds of learning content. 

But it reminded me of a story from my teaching day. I taught downstream from one of my colleagues, getting most of my students from her every year. Invariably, when I asked them about their previous English class, they would disparage it (and her) by saying the class was just a lot of fun and games and they never actually learned anything. But then, at the start of every new unit, I'd do formal or informal assessment to see what they already knew. The answer was usually quite a bit.

"Where do you suppose you learned all that," I would ask them, and the light bulb would slowly go on. It took them literally 6-12 months to understand what they had actually learned. 

This phenomenon has several implications for teachers. I think one of the biggest centers on the issue of confidence. 

Part of what a teacher is doing in a classroom is building student confidence, helping them believe that they have the skills and knowledge to handle what comes at them. But it is easy to build confidence that is not rooted in reality, so one of the skills teachers have to foster is the ability to realistically self-assess. 

This kind of self-assessment looks different in different disciplines. A music student has to learn to really listen to both herself and the rest of the ensemble. An artist has to learn to really look at what they're rendering. A writer has to learn to really see what she's written. This is what teacher feedback is about--not just telling the student how she's doing, but giving her the chance to check her own perceptions against those of someone who, ideally, is more expert. 

I've seen plenty of folks in leadership roles pump students up in artificial ways that lead further down the road to crashing and burning. I've seen students blossom early and stall out because they were pumped up with praise. "You are great for an 8th grader," is no help when you're a tenth grader. 

This is one of the big challenges of teaching--to render yourself obsolete for a student who has learned to measure their own growth and skill. And it is a tricky part, to find the line between discouraging truths and overly-positive praise. If you're going to be a life long learner, you have to be able to gauge your own learning accurately. You don't have to look hard to find adults who never learned this lesson. Add it to the list of things they never told you about the job in teacher school.

TikTokker Trolls Pearson

Right up front, let me note that A) cybersquatting is illegal and B) TikTok is probably some kind of evil surveillance tool for the Chinese.

That said, this is kind of special.

As of today, a TikTokker is in her eighth day of holding the username @pearsoneducation hostage. 

It is safe to say that this user has not been using TikTok for philosophical or deeply artistic pursuits. Here are some of the posts from this siege, mostly posted over serious party activities.

Day 1 of holding Pearson's username hostage. Willing to return for cash. Negotiable. Honestly a kind gesture of me after all the money I spent on all the terible textbooks.

Day 3 of holding this username hostage from a trash textbook company that left a bunch of 18-22 year olds unable to afford to eat.

Day 5 of holding this username hostage and I'm still not convinced that Pearson MyLab wasn't invented in h3ll by demons and fueled by the tears of sleep deprived children.

Day 7 of holding this account hostage. Pearson is still trash. I challenge McGraw-Hill to a beer pong tournament. Get @ me bro.

The account has 9647 follower and some of her hostage posts have hundreds of thousands of likes. If she's doing this for attention, she's getting a bunch. No indication that Pearson has paid the slightest attention to her. They do pride themselves on their ability to swim in the digital ocean, but I don't know if that includes TikTok. The comments on her posts indicate a huge amount of deep-seated anger about Pearson book prices, and a pretty huge number of people angry about jumping through costly certification hoops for the company. 

The account holder has done this before, previously trolling the Oaks Christian School, which now appears to have its account back. 

Hard to imagine how this might play out. It seems like small potatoes, but then, this is the company that tracked down high school students to threaten them for breaking test security, so who knows. In the meantime, if you want to work off some Pearson anger vicariously, you can (for now) check out the account here. 

How PA Charter Schools Stack Up (Spoiler Alert: Not Well)

 In  January, the PA Charter Performance Center of Children First released a new report entitled "The PA Disconnect in Cyber Charter Oversight and Funding." The report packs lots of illuminating details into a slim package, showing not just the facts and figures on Pennsylvania's charter schools, but putting them in the context of what the other cyber schooling states are doing these days.

Regular observers of Pennsylvania's wide-open cyber charter schools will not be surprised by anything here, but it's a clear, calm and balanced picture of the commonwealth's dysfunctional cyber sector. It's important to look at because, as the report notes, Pennsylvania last year led the nation in students enrolled in cyber charters. Throwing that in on top of our already-messed-up school funding system, and you get all sorts of issues. Especially since Pennsylvania's cyber charter laws were drafted in 2002 and have never been revisited or revised.

Here are some highlights from the report.

Charter fans have been talking about the great charter growth during the pandemic. In Pennsylvania, of the great jump to charters, 99.7% of that was students jumping to cyber charters. That growth far outpaced growth in any other state. 

Most states fund cyber schools at the state level, unlike Pennsylvania, where the cybers are funded at the local level. That means that local school districts absorb the cost directly, giving them a choice between either raising property taxes or cutting programs. 

Cyber tuition is based on the local sending district's per pupil costs. In PA, the state puts a small (36%-ish) amount toward school funding, meaning that local districts pick up the rest of the tab locally, to whatever extent they are able. PA's wildly unequal spending means that this is a highly variable figure--per student tuition can range from $9K to $23K for regular students and $18K to $57K for special education students. This means that taxpayers in different districts pay vastly different tuition fees for local students who go cyber; it also means that districts who provide more of their school funding locally will take a bigger local tax hit from cybers. Also, as cyber payments are figured into district funding formulas in subsequent years, the cyber tuition costs automatically go up.

PA used to have a formula for reimbursing districts for a portion of cyber costs. That rule was phased out in 2012 (part of Gov. Tom Corbett's slashing of education funding, which helped earn him his nickname "Old One Term"). Cybers get the same payment as bricks and mortar charter schools, even though they are way less expensive to operate. 

Cybers in PA took in about $980 million last year. The report points out that this is more than three times the amount by which Harrisburg increased basic ed funding this year.

There are fully virtual charters operating in 27 states (with West Virginia coming on board shortly). Not one of them does cyber funding as Pennsylvania does. 

Twenty-one states fund cybers directly. Three other fund via school districts; all three (Illinois, Oregon and Wisconsin) require cybers to be authorized by local districts, unlike PA, which authorizes charters on the state level. In Wisconsin, cybers have to negotiate payment in their contract with the local district.

Many other cyber-states pay cybers less than they pay brick and mortar charters. Some have other creative arrangements. A couple fund cybers based on performance. One performance based method is to pay cybers based on course completion. Texas requires full-time students to complete four full years (eight semester courses) to get the cyber paid. New Hampshire uses a mastery approach; their single state chartered virtual school was created in 2007, and it pays based on the number of mastery milestones that are hit by students. 

A performance-based system would be bad news for PA cyber schools; none of the fourteen schools have ever hit the state proficiency requirements, and some are spectacularly bad. Looking just at 2018-2019, we find that none of the schools beat the state average of 62.1% proficient for English or 45.2% for Math. A couple were almost in the neighborhood, but some--well. Agora Cyber was 34% English, 10.6% Math. Insight PA Cyber was 28.5% English, 7.6% Math. And Commonwealth Charter Academy, the 800 pound gorilla of PA cybers, the business that spent $19 million for advertising over just two years-- their scores show 5% English, and 13.5% Math. 

The report notes that state level cyber charters are created by state agencies are created by state legislation or a state-level agency, and therefor accountable to them. Pennsylvania's charter are okayed by the state, then created by businesses and accountable to the business owners. But accountability remains a huge problem for Pennsylvania taxpayers when it comes to charters.

As the report notes, PA is not the only state to face accountability issues. But other states have adapted. In Ohio, the ECOT scandal, in which the major cyber school in the state was found to have lied about enrollment to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the legislature has tightened up rules. Indiana also had a major scandal (which they found because they require annual audits), and the legislature passed some reforms to tighten the rules. California's huge A3 scandal has led to a moratorium on new cybers, now in place until 2025.

However, in PA, the ScrantonTimes Tribune last year ran a story revealing that six of the 14 cybers have never been reviewed by state auditors, and some only audited once, long ago--Commonwealth Charter Academy's most recent audit was conducted in 2012. As yet the legislature has done nothing other than to oppose Governor Wolf's plan including a required annual audit for cyber schools. 

The report includes several recommendations, some of which are pretty basic common sense. Don't pay for cyber charter schools if the local district already offers virtual schooling. Create a state-level cyber as a true public good. Audit cyber schools annually. Set a tuition rate in line with actual costs of providing virtual schooling, and make it uniform across the state. Vet newly proposed charters based on quality and need.

In short, treat virtual schooling as a part of an important public education system, and not as an opportunity for some business folks to hoover up taxpayer dollars. Several superintendents ago, my boss, as he was leaving the job, offered me some advice. "Go start a cyber school," he said. "It's going to be as good as printing money." He was not wrong then. It would be nice if Pennsylvania adopted enough rules so that he would be wrong now.