Wednesday, August 9, 2023

UT: State Board Member Attacks Teachers

It was, the Utah State Board of Education concluded, within a board member's rights to make statements as an individual, even if she exercised her First Amendment Rights by saying something really troubling and false. And so, this time, Natalie Cline doesn't even get a slap on the wrist.

What did Cline say this time? In a July 4 Facebook post, Cline wrote:

Schools are not only complicit in the grooming of children for sex trafficking, but they are aiding and abetting this evil practice by giving kids easy access to explicit, unnatural, and twisted sexual content and brainwashing them into queer, gender bending ideologies.

That's a lot. But the state board stopped short of actually censuring her for either that post or an incident in which she allegedly made some comments about an employee that she found insufficiently female. Cline had jumped the gun and declared herself cleared of all charges based on a preliminary report, but the final finding was mild. She's got a First Amendment Right to say things, it said, but it would be nice if those things were both civil and accurate.

The Utah Education Association issued a release saying it "vehemently opposed" her remarks, as well they should be. 

We are deeply troubled by USBE's failure to find her toxic words in violation of its standards and its unwillingness to take action or censure Cline.

"I am horrified that an elected official entrusted with overseeing education policy in our state would blatantly disregard teachers' tireless efforts and intentionally create an environment of mistrust and hostility detrimental to the educational process," President Renee Pinkney said.

Cline was elected to the state board in 2020, and if nothing else, you can't say she wasn't up front about what she saw as the major issues for education in Utah. Here are some of the answers Candidate Cline offered the website Ballotpedia in response to their standard questions.

What are three key messages of her campaign?

* I will fight for - TRUE Local Control of Curriculum, Assessments, and Spending; Strong Supports for Educators; Parental Voice and Choice in their Children's Education; & Parents and Teachers Deciding Together what is BEST for the Child

* I will fight to - Protect the Innocence of Youth, their Mental Health, and Data Privacy

* I will fight to - Restore Freedom in Education! NO... Anti-American Curriculum, Political Indoctrination, or Sexualized Lesson Plans

What areas of public policy is she passionate about? Take a deep breath...

I am concerned about the increasingly politicized nature of our schools and the rapid advancement of programs and curriculum created by special interest groups to sexualize our children, confuse them about their gender, and indoctrinate them in Anti-American revisionist history and Karl Marx's Critical Race Theory that assumes all white people are inherently racist. Children are not inherently racist or sexual. To teach them otherwise is abusive and harmful to their mental health. I am also passionate about protecting children from an increasingly technology-driven school experience. This too is harmful to the mental health of many of our children. Technology is useful in its proper place, but can often get in the way of curriculum that builds character and understanding in our students. Deep learning comes from a study of classical literature, history from original source documents, and traditional math, science, and the arts. It's time to get back to the basics. To do this we must return decision making power to those closest to the child - the parents and teachers. We must send more money to the local districts and let them choose their standards, curriculum, and assessments. We must provide the help, support, and training our teachers need!
We must return to teaching the principles of freedom that made our country great and restore within our students a love for America!

Cline, a registered nurse, said that she has been fighting for "family-friendly policies at the international and local level for the past decade," and if so, she hasn't left much of a digital footprint beyond Higher Ground, a sort of organization/website that sounds the alarm that "the public school system is out of control" and has become a "cultural tsunami." 

Cline's Facebook page is loaded with Kim Ells and Chris Rufo and a variety of hard right influencers, and Higher Ground is more of the same. SEL, DEI and whole child mental health are all about indoctrinating children. Comprehensive sex ed is part of a plan to erase sexual inhibitions and boundaries so that evil adults can prey on children. Standardization is about socially engineering children (don't think for a moment that these folks have forgotten the evils of Common Core). There's the outsourcing of decisions to "experts" (I think I agree with her a bit on the scare quotes, since so many edu-experts are not actual experts at all). 

And this is interesting-- the group opposes "exploiting children for socioeconomic agendas," which includes the "college and career readiness" umbrella as well as school choice.

Yes, Cline and folks in her orbit turn out to be an example of how this far right ideology does not always get along with school choice.

If the government funds it, they reason, the government controls it. "Parents give the government access to their children at home and in private school settings in exchange for state-sourced school choice money," says the site, but there are always "strings attached."  Vouchers, charters, home school funding, etc are "only the illusion of choice" because the government controls what it pays for. The "educational-industrial complex" has grown and been co-opted, so "the window for truly free market solutions has been effectively sealed." We're supposed to depend on God, not the government.

Your children are worth infinitely more than the government is willing to pay you to have access to them.

If all this sounds like the belief system of a person who would be a bad fit for the state's education board, well. Cline's latest dustup is certainly not her only one. Within her first eight months in office, the board (which has 15 members in all) issued statements condemning her various comments, which have been anti-LGBTQ and anti-Black Lives Matter. The Utah Pride Center, Equality Utah, the Black Lives Matter chapter for the state, and the NAACP branch for Salt Lake City had all spoken out against Cline’s remarks within her first month in office. In a particularly nasty incident, she accused a teacher, by name and without evidence, of promoting communism; the teacher's district denied the allegation, but of course the teacher was subjected to a barrage of online attacks. There was a petition calling for her removal, but unless she does something like knock over a bank, nobody really has the power tyoi do that. Elections matter.

Nothing seems to have chastened Cline or slowed her roll. Her Facebook page is still loaded with far right material, including the usual celebration of standing out because you are a put-upon minority fighting for what is right. "You were born to stand out." "Do what is right, let the consequence follow. God will protect you in doing what's right." "If they succeed in silencing me, they succeed in silencing you!" Posts offering "more PROOF of GROOMING/INDOCTRINATION." 

There's just a lot. Like someone who found a copy of "Narwhal: Unicorn of the Sea" (great books-- the twins love them) in which the pronoun "themself" is used instead of "himself" (our copy, fwiw, has "himself"). "This," Cline explains, "is about grooming children into radical gender-bending ideology. It is the science of indoctrination posing as a literacy program to improve reading." That's why she voted against the Kids Read Now $4.5 million grant to send books directly to kids' homes (part of Science of Reading initiative). 

Utah doesn't have any Moms for Liberty chapters, and Cline and her supporters don't seem all that interested in the kind of political game playing that M4L is busy with. This all seems much more over on the religious Q-anon end of the spectrum.

After he launched critical race theory panic, Chris Rufo said his next move would be to get folks stirred up over LGBTQ issues, so he's probably pleased with Cline's trajectory in Utah. She seems entirely sincere, but this level of fear and concern has to be exhausting. How tiring can it be to believe that most of the country is against you, that there is a vast conspiracy bent on consuming children, that there is a groomer around every corner (and how ignorant to believe that LGBTQ persons only exist because they were "recruited" as children). How hard is the work of collecting and creating proof, of casting educators and schools as evil menaces. How dispiriting to worship a God so tiny that He has to be defended from things like pronouns in children's books. 

I've known folks like Cline, and I imagine that she gets her energy from envisioning a story in which she is a beleaguered crusader for all that is Good and True, so righteous that she strikes fear into the large dark army arrayed against her. That's a perch from which it can seem perfectly okay to slander the entire school system, but it has to be exhausting, and I'm not sure what good it does the children of Utah. Cline is next up for election in 2024. This kind of over-the-top attack on schools is just wrong; let's hope voters put a stop to it. 

Tuesday, August 8, 2023

Is Education Reform Evolving?

Has the education reformster movement evolved over the past forty-ish years? In a recent piece for Education Next, Rick Hess argues that there has been a major shift in the "school improvement" world. I'm not convinced. But Hess is someone I think of as worth taking seriously, so I'm going to go ahead and take a closer look at what he sees, and why I see something else.

Hess's idea is pretty simple: Back in 1983, the focus of education reform was on tweaking the traditional system. A Nation At Risk, says Hess, "was married to an intense faith in the conventional schoolhouse." Nowadays, the focus is on burning down and replacing the public education system via vouchers etc. 

The upshot is that, 40 years on, we’ve exited one era of school improvement defined by the attempt to bolster the “one best system” and entered one notable for attempts to dismantle it.

I don't think so. While the history of modern reformsterism is admittedly complicated, featuring alliances that involve both reformsters using others and others using reformsters, I think there's a pretty clear through line that has always been there.

We can go back to the days before A Nation At Risk and talk about the granddaddy of burn-it-all-down reform, Milton Friedman, who was pretty clear--for a really long time--about A) liking vouchers and B) why he did:

He and his libertarian allies saw vouchers as a temporary first step on the path to school privatization. He didn’t intend for governments to subsidize private education forever. Rather, once the public schools were gone, Friedman envisioned parents eventually shouldering the full cost of private schooling without support from taxpayers. Only in some “charity” cases might governments still provide funding for tuition.

Friedman first articulated this outlook in his 1955 manifesto, but he clung to it for half a century, explaining in 2004, “In my ideal world, government would not be responsible for providing education any more than it is for providing food and clothing.” Four months before his death in 2006, when he spoke to a meeting of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), he was especially frank. Addressing how to give parents control of their children’s education, Friedman said, “The ideal way would be to abolish the public school system and eliminate all the taxes that pay for it.”

In 1955, Friedman's idea was perfectly positioned for segregationists looking for a way to circumvent Brown v. Board (for a good look at this, read Steve Suitts slim but thorough Overturning Brown). I don't want to argue whether Friedman was a segregationist or not; it's enough that he never explained who the nation could end both public education and segregation. 

But beyond the world of people who didn't like public ed because it spent their tax dollars on or set their children next to Those People's Children, folks mostly liked their public schools. So for people who wanted to take back public schools for God, people who wanted to break open an untapped multi-billion dollar market, and people who shared Friedman's dream of an end to public education and the taxation that supported it, there was one major obstacle-- the public belief that public schools are not only good, but a necessary good for society. 

A Nation At Risk was the first major shot at removing that obstacle. As Anya Kamanetz, who did some digging into the report, reported on the 35th anniversary:

But what I learned in talking to two of the original authors of “A Nation At Risk” was that they never set out to undertake an objective inquiry into the state of the nation’s schools.

Cherry-picked data. Repeatedly debunked conclusions. Produced under a President who had already called for the end of the Department of Education. And a prediction of imminent doom that has never actually come true in forty years. And nothing concrete that would actually point to actionable steps for improvement. While the public was waggling its eyebrows at striking pull quotes like the whole "if another country did this to us it would be an act of war" or the mellifluous "rising tide of mediocrity," actual educators in actual schools were looking at all this and asking, "And you would like us to do.... what, exactly?"

But ANAR launched a modern reformster movement. Kamenetz quotes Mike Petrilli of the very reformy Fordham Institute calling ANAR a "touchstone" and pointing out that it's in the Fordham mission statement

The question here, looking at Hess's thesis, is this: was that movement aimed at improving public schools?

I accept that, at every turn in those years (I started teaching in the fall of 1980), there were people who meant well. I believe that there are free market true fans who believe with all their hearts that free market forces and competition would truly improve public education. I believe that there are standards and data cultists who believe that measuring and testing and data crunching would lead us to better schools. I think they are absolutely wrong, but let's skip that for a minute.

But I also have no doubt that, for a huge chunk of the reformster crew, ANAR marks the beginning of a long, patient attempt to move the Overton Window on education, that window through which one views which policies are politically viable. In the 90s, CATO was still singing the Friedman song-- abolish the whole thing. But the window wasn't there yet.

Every wave of ed reform has been used to turn the baseless assertion that "American public education is failing" into conventional wisdom, a thing that people repeat and accept without any critical consideration. And every tap of that "failing American schools" hammer has moved the Overton Window closer to the point where the dissolution of public schools, once an unthinkable "solution," has become more and more thinkable.

No Child Left Behind was premised on the notion that schools were failing and had to be fixed. The standards movement was premised on the notion that schools were failing and had to be fixed. Race to the Top and the Common Core--both based on the notion that schools were failing and had to be fixed. Hess's phrase-- "school improvement"-- was never how the reform movement identified itself.

My colleagues and I watched, first incredulously, then with mounting frustration, realizing that policies like No Child Left Behind's mandate that all students must be scoring above average on the Big Standardized by 2014 were not designed to fix anything, but simply gather more data "proving" that we were failing. There was no help for us in the classroom anywhere in these policies--just threats. Get those scores up, or else. The early part of the millennium saw the activation of so many teachers as they realized that the game had been rigged for them to fail and for public education to pay the price. Meanwhile, all the "or elses" were simply normalizing the idea of public school alternatives. Tap, tap, tap on the Overton Window.

Reformsters made alliance for a while with people interested in social justice, a politically advantageous move in the Obama years, but then an unnecessary one in the Trump era. School choice, tried out in a variety of forms, never really made a convincing case for social justice or equity or better education or more efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and while, again, I'll agree that some people sincerely believed that school choice would serve those goals, they also provided cover for the folks who just wanted to keep tapping away at that window.

When COVID hit and school buildings were shut, folks on the far right sensed an opportunity to smack that window with a sledgehammer. Tap, tap, BAM! Now ed reform barely pretends to be interested in choice as anything other than a way to dismantle public education, top privatize not only the business of providing of education, but the responsibility for it, while using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private, mostly Christian schools. 

I'll say it again--all along this path, there have undoubtedly been reformsters who sincerely believed that their particular brilliant idea would fix public schools. At the same time, many were working on the same old voucher idea by tweaking the branding (since vouchers still weren't politically viable). Maybe call them scholarships, or savings accounts? Maybe we don't need vouchers to get rid of public ed--just  sell other alternatives, like computerized algorithm-driven programs. 

Standing here in 2023, it's pretty easy to see a straight line running from Milton Friedman through A Nation at Risk right up to the current Burn It All Down Moment. When Chris Rufo said "To get universal school choice, you really need to operate from a place of universal school distrust," he was simply describing the long march toward Friedman's dream. 

There have always been seams in the various reformy alliances. In the Obama years, social justice types chafed at working with "racists" as free marketeers tired of the touchy feely stuff. Charters brought together people who really believed in charters and people who considered them a half-measure until vouchers could be implemented. Right now, I have a read-between-the-lines tension between the experienced grownups of ed reform and the new burn-it-all-down dudebros taking center stage.

The reform movement has never been a homogenous whole, but instead has married together a variety of interests. The balance between those partnerships is sometimes hard to read-- are Christian nationalists using the choice movement, or is the choice movement using Christian nationalists? Only a few of those interests have ever been in the promise of quality education for all students. And the part of the movement that Hess depicts as a new evolution, a new idea about reform, a new emphasis on replacing public education--that has always always been there. It's not a new idea at all; for many folks it has always been the only idea that matters. 








Sunday, August 6, 2023

Stupid Gender Role Rules

Here's how attempting to enforce Don't Say Gay rules, rules that say you can't instruct students about gender roles of sexual identity, ends up--with stupid, stupid rules.

In Iowa, parents are apparently receiving a letter that says, in part:

Recently passed legislation … requires that school districts receive written permission from parents and/or guardians regarding any request by a student to accommodate a gender identity, name or pronoun that is different from what was assigned to the student during the school registration process. This requirement also applies to all nicknames. (i.e. Sam instead of Samuel; Addy instead of Addison, etc.)

This is stupid. Students cannot even name themselves. And nicknames, which often (and frequently) emerge organically from the regular ins and outs of life must now all be cleared with adults via a new level of bureaucracy and paperwork. I cannot even imagine the stupidity of classroom exchanges like

Student: Hey, could you call me Butch instead of Albert?

Teacher: Not until you bring in your paperwork from home and it clears the office and I'm notified that Butch is allowed.

Not to mention all the ancillary stupid that comes with this, like the divorced shared-custody parents who can't agree on whether a particular nickname is okay or not. 

Update: Florida parents may getting the same dumb letter

In Florida (of course), the Parental Rights In Education Act, also known as the Totally Not A Don't Day Gay Law And Don't You Dare Call It That, appears to have outlawed the AP Psychology course, because it mentions LGBTQ stuff. The state quickly backpedaled--well, actually, let's call it a side-pedal-- and said it's not illegal exactly, but teachers are risking their careers if the state decides they have judged "age and developmentally appropriate" incorrectly. 

And so we have a parental rights law that makes it illegal to say gay, and also denies parents the right to enroll their child in certain courses that say the Forbidden Words. 

But let's go to Mississippi, where the Harrison County school district has decided to crack down on trans students, specifically by requiring them to wear clothes that are "consistent with their biological sex that is stated in the student’s cumulative folder and permanent record the School District."

Mississippi is one of seven states that doesn't need a Don't Say Gay law, because back in the 90s they passed a "No Promo Homo" law, a relic of the gay panic of thirty years ago. Mississippi has gone hard for anti-trans laws. Oddly enough, attempts to ban instruction about gender roles and sexual identity have failed, which is good news for Harrison County, which now has a policy that provides very strict policy about gender roles and sexual identity.

Because, yes, if you read about requirement to wear clothes that conform to "biological sex" and thought, "Well, who decides that," the answer is Harrison County schools, where the new dress code explains specifically what boys and girls are allowed to wear.  

The handbook explains :

The Harrison County School District (the “School District”) does not intend to have policies that overly restrict the dress of the individual students under contemporary standards. It is, however, the School District’s duty and objective to see that students attending the schools in the Harrison County School District are well groomed, particularly as to their physical appearance, and that their choice of dress is conducive to the learning environment, and is not disruptive to the learning environment; enhances learning and good behavior; increases the focus on instruction; creates a sense of school unity and discipline; maintains dignity in school; encourages responsible dress for students; and enhances safety and security at school.

The new additions to the policy are these three items:

1. Boys must wear shorts or pants, and shirts and footwear according to the dress code of the Harrison County School District.

2. Girls must wear dresses or skirts or shorts or pants, and shirts or blouses and footwear according to the dress code of the Harrison County School District.

3. Boys and girls must follow the dress attire consistent with their biological sex that is stated in the student’s cumulative folder and permanent record the School District prepared under the guidelines of the Mississippi Department of Education Manual of Directions.

So, basically, boys can't wear skirts or dresses. 

Why is Harrison County bothering to add these rules? Could be because they wound up in court last May because they wouldn't allow a transgender student to wear a dress and high heels to her graduation. This despite the student's assertion that for four years she had worn dresses to class and been addressed as a female by students and staff. The district superintendent Mitchell King felt the need to track down the students in the district that were, in his opinion, boys who were going to try to wear a dress at graduation and pre-emptively forbid them. The court rules in favor of the district, and then the district got rewriting their rules, because of all the things that threaten education in Mississippi, boy's wearing dresses is clearly the Number One problem.

We could add more stupid rules to the list, like the anti-trans athlete rules that have the effect of allowing parents of losing athletes to harass female athletes who beat their kid ("I don't believe any girl could beat my Susie--I demand you make that fifteen year old runner prove she's really a girl. Make her take a dna test! Pull down her pants! Do something!").

All of these rules whipped up by culture warriors ultimately have the same effect--they make life more difficult for children just trying to live their lives and make their way through school.

If this is supposed to be child-centered and for the good of students, we are way off the mark. I would say that in many cases the warriors are shooting themselves in the foot, but that's not quite right--they are shooting children and parents in the foot. Maybe stop using children as shields and excuses for anti-LGBTQ rule-making. 




ICYMI: August, Somehow Edition (8/6)

It has been a rough few weeks. We at the Institute recommend that you hug your loved ones and make the best use of your time you can. If that includes doing some reading, I have a few pieces for you.

State takeovers of ‘failing’ schools are increasing, but with little evidence they help students

Steven Yoder at Hechinger pulls up some of the data that shows what we already know-- school takeovers are a waste of everyone's time and money.

When One School District Falls: HISD is a Preview for All Schools

Nancy Bailey with a good quick explainer of the takeover of Houston schools, and why they are bad news nationally. 

"Learning? What Learning? We're in the middle of testing." "I was misinformed."

What's the worst PD in the world? Jeff Waid makes his case for the worst PD being the ones all about data.

I Put an LGBTQ+ Book on My Classroom Reading List. Then Someone Filed a Police Report

At EdWeek, Sarah Bonner tells a nightmarish tale of how 20-year teacher was driven, quickly and brutally, out of the classroom. 

Superintendent claims the spoils of the Bucks County culture wars

On the other hand, if you are a superintendent willing to go along with a repressive, anti-reading, anti-public ed board like the one in Bucks County PA, you might get to cash in big time. From the Philadelphia Inquirer, so beware the paywall.


The indispensable Mercedes Schneider with the gazillionth iteration of the same old story--a state is going to hand huge power over education to some guy who has no actual qualifications at all. 

LZ Granderson takes us to Arizona for an interesting angle, looking at how the use of "choice" as cover for certain political interests has screwed the families that could use some actual school choice.

More teachers are quitting their jobs. Educators of color often are more likely to leave

Marc Levy (AP) takes a look at how Pennsylvania schools are failing to hold on to teachers of color, and while there's nothing super new here, it's nice to see AP noticing.

Florida Attempting to Revive the “Happy Slave” Myth as Real History

Steven Singer offers some actual history regarding enslaved folks in this country.

When Did We Take the Wrong Road to Education Reform and Where Has It Taken Us?

Jan Resseger takes a dive into reformy history and its many wrong turns.

Makeover attempt? NC candidate for governor Mark Robinson has pulled out of a conspiracy theorist event. He’s still Mark Robinson.

Mark Robinson has always been bad news, but now that he wants to be North Carolina's governor, he's trying to present a kinder, gentler face. Justin Parmenter wants to remind you why you shouldn't be fooled.

How Oklahoma Became Ground Zero in the War Over Church-State Separation

Samuel Perry for Time. What's going on in Oklahoma education doesn't have much to do with choice, and Secretary Dudebro is right in the middle of it.

Walters claims TPS takes money from China; school board president says no

Speaking of which, here's his latest crazypants baloney in his quest to take over Tulsa schools.

Educating for “College and Career Readiness”? Are We Sure About That? (pt. II)

Keith Benson does a pretty cool dive into the question of what college and career readiness has meant for the past few decades.

The Right-Wing Think Tank That the Charter School Industry Relies On

At The Progressive, NPW director Carol Burris breaks down CREDO, that outfit that is often presented as a Stanford smarty pants department but, on examination, looks a lot more like a right-wing research fabricator for the privatization industry.

I Had a Dream about the First Day of School…

No, not the scary one, where you can't find your classroom and your students are out of control. Nancy Flanagan has a much better dream about that first day.


McSweeney's. I'll give you a taste, but click through to the whole list:

Where the Wild Things Are
Don’t be fooled by shiny medals. This is a horrifying story of lawlessness and open borders. It teaches that it’s okay to cause chaos and become the kingpin of some antifa group of thugs and then get off scot-free with a warm dinner waiting. Not in this lifetime, Max.

Join me on substack, where it's always free and sitting in your email inbox to look at when you're in the mood.


Friday, August 4, 2023

Another Reformster Changes Their Mind Re: Big Standardized Tests

Thomas Arnett of the Christensen Institute used to like the Big Standardized Test just fine. Nowadays... well, let's see what might have changed, because it's an instructive look at reformy ideas.

Here's Arnett in December of 2015:

Opponents of standardized testing raise a number of legitimate issues that education leaders and policymakers ought to address. But getting rid of standardized tests would be a major mistake, especially considering the important role these test play in shedding light on achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Instead of retreating from the idea of testing, we need to learn from the flaws of our current assessment system and take advantage of new ideas and technologies. This way, we can ultimately improve how assessments support progress for our students and our schools.

When he wrote that, Arnett, he was just a couple of years into his gig as a Senior Deep Education Thinker at Christensen Institute, "a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to improving the world through Disruptive Innovation" founded by Clayton Christensen, the daddy of disruptive innovation.

Christensen has a whole education department, headed by Julia Freelan Fisher, who graduated from Princeton (BA, Comparative Literature and Latin American Studies), then spent a couple of years doing PR for NewSchools Venture fund, the got her law degree from Yale. This somehow qualifies her to lead a team whose goal is "to transform monolithic, factory-model education systems into student-centered designs that educate every student successfully and enable each to realize his or her fullest potential."

Arnett's story is one we've heard from so many reformsters. Graduated from BYU with a BS in economics in 2009, then put in two years with Teach for America in Kansas City. According to his LinkedIn account, he did such awesome things as "Invested students in ambitious academic goals through vision-setting and high-quality instruction. Designed, implemented, and continuously revised student incentive systems to motivate academic achievement. Organized an administered a lunch time program that increased student work completion by approximately 40%" as well as figuring out how to "integrate" Khan Academy into the classroom. Having put in his two years, he headed out for Carnegie Mellon University for his MBA, then on to his Senior Research Fellow job with Christensen. In 2020 he added a post on the board of Compass Charter Schools. 

In short, one more guy who's a business person, not an educator, a guy who argues that education's problem is that it needs a new business model. Arnett has been a big advocate of handing education over to computer-based algorithms. Disruptive innovation, baby.


The piece invokes an impressive cloud of argle bargle, business jargon throwing its back out trying to do all the heavy lifting. (For example: "The value networks that established organizations sit within, and the business models they’ve developed within those value networks, make them systematically unable to pursue disruptive innovations because disruptive innovations run counter to priorities and metrics that pervade and distill from their value networks.") But the piece boils itself down to these two points:

*The metrics used to gauge the quality of conventional schooling can hinder the growth and innovation of microschools, learning centers, and homeschool co-ops.

*To foster new models of schooling, philanthropists, researchers, and policymakers must resist the impulse to impose conventional metrics and instead develop new quality measures that align with the unique aims of these programs.

In other words, remember how reformsters successfully saddled public schools with the Big Standardized Test as a way to provide solid "data" that public schools were "failing" and thereby erode trust in them and create pressure for alternatives? But BS Testing also makes our "alternatives" look bad. Also, it's hard to innovate at a school when you have to worry about BS Test scores all the time--when scores drive your school's function, it kind of gets in the way.

So, Arnett is arguing, let's not hamper reformy education-flavored businesses with the same testing albatross that we hung around the neck of public schools. Sire, we used to say that scores were crucial "data" that the public and policy makers needed, but it turns out the same hammer that busted open the piggy bank of taxpayer education dollars also hurts when you smack our preferred privatized options, so maybe don't.

Arnett is not willing to take his argument one step further-- if the kinds of metrics that have been forced on public schools are bad for alternative types of schools, then maybe they are also bad for public schools and we should just get rid of them for everyone. He doesn't come right out and say that the metrics don't actually provide some sort of absolute objective measure of educational quality. And he does lean on one lie--the notion that the metrics are a result of "value networks" as if it were all the stakeholders in public education that demanded BS testing, and not a bunch of reformsters and thinky tanks like Christensen. 

But it's all there, anyway. Arnett is late to the party, but by all means--let's do away with Big Standardized Test metrics. For everyone. 

Wednesday, August 2, 2023

Florida's Black History Standards Are A Feel Good Story

Oh, those feel good stories. 

An 8-year-old raises money to pay off classmates lunch debt. Boy raises money to buy friend a wheelchair. Celebrities help teachers clear their wish lists. The Today show highlights a company donating computers to a school. A periodic story about how a GoFundMe brings hope to some ailing person. 

These are all versions of the same story:

Look at how this person overcame these obstacles! No, let's absolutely NOT talk about the obstacles and why they shouldn't have been there in the first place, and let's absolutely NOT talk about the individuals and systems that create and maintain those obstacles. How the heck does it happen that elementary school children accumulate $4,000 of debt just because they want to eat lunch? Is that child making up for some choice that adults ought to feel ashamed of and then fix? Shhhh! 

It's a variation on the Undercover Boss phenomenon, that show where a boss would find out that one of his employees wasn't making enough money to live, so he gives a raise to that employee and draws absolutely no conclusion about all his other employees. It's about the rich folks being praised for their philanthropy and helping the less fortunate-- as long as that "giving" doesn't involve looking at how their vast wealth is a result of the same systems that create the inequity they're throwing a feel good bandaid toward.

The moral of all these stories is that we don't need to pay any attention to the factors that made all this pluck and hard work and initiative necessary in the first place. The moral of these stories is that as long as deserving people loaded with grit and resilience can find a way to overcome the forces arrayed against them, we don't need to look at, think about, or address those forces ever.

For some folks, the Feel Good Story template also applies to issues of race in this country.

The line in Florida's Black History standards about how enslaved people picked up some useful job skills during their enslavement has rightfully drawn a great deal of scorn and criticism (even from some Black conservatives). But it's just a piece of the larger argument made by the standards. As Michael Harriot points out in The Grio, there are plenty of other pieces of the standards that minimize slavery, including this idea:

Floridians will not learn about segregation and Jim Crow when they reach the eighth grade. Even then, those government-backed regulations are only taught as a policy that Black people overcame, not something that still impacts the country today.

This is a recurring theme in right-tilted approaches to the history of race and enslavement and racism in the US-- why keep talking about how oppressive people and systems were and are, when we can instead focus on the triumphs of those Blacks who rose above it? It's in projects like Trump/Hillsdale's 1776 curriculum, and it's in the defense of the standards offered by Black standards committee member William Allen and Frances Presley Rice (who may have done a disproportionate amount of the deciding for the committee). Here's an excerpt from their joint statement:

Any attempt to reduce slaves to just victims of oppression fails to recognize their strength, courage and resiliency during a difficult time in American history. Florida students deserve to learn how slaves took advantage of whatever circumstances they were in to benefit themselves and the community of African descendants.

Let's not talk about the "difficult time,' or what caused it or who was oppressive or enslaving Black persons. Let's not talk about the patterns and institutions involved with an eye toward spotting similar patterns of racism today. 

Let's take the history of race in this country and frame it as a Feel Good story about how (some) people used grit and hard work and personal responsibility to overcome a bunch of obstacles that we are definitely NOT going to talk about, because that might make us feel bad, and feeling bad is, of course, the exact opposite of what a Feel Good story is supposed to do.

Florida's Black History standards are an attempt to reduce a complex and complicated story filled with both great triumph and tremendous evil, to boil it down to something that would fit on a Hallmark card. The standards are a lie of omission based on the presumption that children somehow can't handle the whole truth (or, perhaps, that certain adults don't want to). 

Feel Good stories are a type of toxic positivity. You don't fix things that need fixing by pretending they're just fine. And there's an unpleasant subtext here--these Feel Good people escaped the bad thing through grit and gumption, so maybe the people who didn't escape just weren't trying hard enough. Feel Good stories are another face of the old "if you're poor, it's your own fault." Or, in this case, "if slavery and racism messed up your life, maybe that's your fault for not being strong and gritty enough."

We should certainly celebrate the heroism and hard work of the people who accomplish these things, but you don't really celebrate the heroism of people who overcome big odds without fully understanding what they were up against. Nor do you make progress when you insist that racist people and racists systems are just like the weather--sometimes inconvenient, but outside of anyone's control. Good feelings based on denial of reality never last, and it's hard to navigate a world that you don't actually see. 

Monday, July 31, 2023

About My Father

I

Every year we make the pilgrimage to the cabin on the lake. The lake itself straddles the New Hampshire-Maine border, relatively quiet and off the beaten path, though not as far off as when my father's father built the place 70ish years ago. 

It's under an hour from Rye, where both my parents grew up, and so was convenient for family get aways. I can remember trips there as a kid. Eating on a bench overlooking the water, the scent of sun-warmed pine needles outside, the slightly musty lake smell inside. It still smells that way, and it takes me back the instant we get out of the car.

The camp is the last of the family roots up there. Both of my grandparents' homes are now gone, taken down so someone could build a fancier house. But the camp has pictures of family, a logbook that goes back decades (you have to journal your visit daily while there--house rules). My father and mother rescued the place, after some years of neglect by my uncle. They restored it, preserved it, added to it. Now six generations have used it this family legacy, though Mom and Dad haven't been able to make the trip for several years. Lot of memories from the past, but not much to do but be with the people who are there with you. We swim, paddle on the lake, or sit on the deck and read, listening to the wind through the trees and the loons on the water.

That's where we were when I got word that the hospice house had started my father on morphine.

II

My father was born in 1935. His father was a general contractor (the kind who always had work) and his mother would go on to be a longtime New Hampshire state legislator (the kind who is always unopposed for re-election because everyone is perfectly happy with her work). 

He was bit of a rapscallion as a youth. He flooded a school bathroom. His grandfather (The Doctor) found him placed in time out in the hall. His report cards say that he talked too much. His parents sent him to Philips Exeter Academy to be a non-residential student (a townie) not because they wanted him to run elbows with the sons of wealthy families, but because they wanted him to shape up. He wrote a letter to his aunt, pleading for her to intercede on his behalf, because Philips Exeter had no girls among the student body.

All of this comes as a surprise to people have only known him as an adult who seemed entirely straight-laced and by the book. 















But Dad always has always gone his own way. When other fifties teens were getting into Little Richard and Buddy Holly and Elvis, Dad was beginning a life-long interest in Glenn Miller. He watched Monty Python and a host of British comedies, but he was also a big fan of The Love Boat and the Jack Webb stable of procedurals. His love of Miller expanded into interest in all manner of interest in Big Band and jazz (for years, my brother and I hosted a Big Band show on the local radio station--we did it with his collection). But he also loved ABBA. 

He was spectacularly unconcerned about fashion. Preferred clothing: plaid shirt and white socks. Over the years he collected a variety of comfortable and practical hats, all ugly. He never drank nor smoked; he was the guy who shared with me the trick of carrying a glass with some ginger ale in it at parties to keep people from pestering you with alcohol.

You can let people control you by always doing what they say. You can also let people control you by doing the opposite of what they say. Just use your best judgement and do what's right. That's one of the lessons I learned from my father.

III

While his Philips Exeter classmates headed off for the Ivies, Dad went to the University of New Hampshire and got a mechanical engineering degree (top of his class). He was an engineer by profession his whole life, working for Joy Manufacturing Company (the leading producer of underground coal mining machinery) for 41 years. He was hugely respected there, called a "mentor" and lauded for both his engineering and leadership abilities. I long ago lost track of the number of people who have gone out of their way to tell me and my siblings how much they respected him and loved working for and with him. His policy and procedure directives were called Scotty Grams. Someone at the company once shared that he enjoyed the "dry pithy witticisms" in my father's memos.

Joy eventually became a poster child for all the bad things that can happen when companies are bought and sold by investors who are more important than cashing in than whatever it is the company actually does. There were some tense years when he was a undercover corporate rebel, holding the line in spite of what his bosses wanted him to do. At one point, new owners gave him a commendation for disobeying the previous owners.

He had the engineer's lover of rules, and he was practical and methodical. He taught me how to do body work repairs on a car by using pop rivets, left over sheet metal ductwork, and roofing cement. He wanted to tape audio from the tv, so he rigged wiring and plugs to do that. 

He had us help him on projects (this will just take fifteen minutes, he would say) and sometimes it took longer than promised because if the problem turns out to be bigger than you thought, well, that's what you have to deal with. Reality does not adjust itself to your wishes and hopes and expectations, and life is not always fair. 

He developed his own design for bookshelves (and all of his children ended up with them in their homes). He was a car guy, and we learned about how to work on them and take care of them, too. 

That engineer's mindset led to his second career. After retiring from Joy, he became a volunteer at a local museum of old musical contraptions--band organs and the like. Repairing and restoring the devices was real art and an engineer's dream challenge. He became the (unpaid) executive director of the museum, and the work he and his team did in restorations was in demand outside of the museum itself. In the family, we made the joke that he stopped working forty hours a week for pay so that he could work sixty hours a week for free. 

IV

He loved projects. The camp was a project, for certain, and the museum was perhaps the biggest project ever. But there were others.

He owned a 1914 Federal Fire Truck ("federal" was a make, not a jurisdictional designation). The kind with solid rubber tires that you had to start with a crank. He restored that. When we were little, he would drive it around the neighborhood and the neighborhood kids would all run out and ride on it. My daughter's wedding party took pictures on it. 

He also restored a 1940 four-door Buick convertible, which was used on a few occasions to drive his children and their new spouses around after the ceremonial flinging of the rice. Oh, and an aged roto-tiller.

He was constantly rebuilding, restoring, renovating. His other big decades-long project was the church, where he has certainly poked, prodded and repaired every nook and cranny of that aging structure. He took care of that place like it was his own home. 

V

He married the love of his life. They met and first dated in high school. Somewhere in one of those first dates he ended up with one of her bobby pins. He stuck it in his wallet. Then when he got a new wallet, he transferred the bobby pin. He carried that bobby pin with him for seventy-some years. 

They got married between his junior and senior year at UNH; she had already graduated from teachers' college. During his senior year, she taught in an elementary school. There's a graduation picture of him, in his cap and gown, with my mother, who is holding me, a lump barely a couple of weeks old. 

When they got married, he already had two potential employers after him, so as soon as he graduated, they moved to Claremont. They lived for a year with the Paradises, who were forever my third set of grandparents (their daughter Elaine is a reader of this blog). Then they moved to their own home, had a couple more kids, moved to the other side of town (Joy said, "Sell your house, you're moving to Pennsylvania" and then after the house was sold "Oh, we meant next year") and then to Pennsylvania. I was an adult before I realized that their story was the story of a pair of twenty-somethings repeatedly being uprooted and dragging three kids all over the countryside.

But they did it together and raised the kids together and took care of the church together, and when the museum gig came along it was perfect because for twenty-some years they went to work together. One of my old friends told me that he thought of them as Howard and Marion Cunningham; in the last few decades they also bore a resemblance to Henry Fonda and Katherine Hepburn in On Golden Pond. They modeled commitment and love for all of us.

Mind you, we are not a demonstrative clan, and the engineer-from-rock-ribbed-New-England thing may have gone along with a stern, hard exterior, but inside my father was all warm marshmallow, and if that was not entirely obvious to me and my siblings growing up, the grandchildren made it obvious. I grew up with the understanding that in church one was supposed to behave. Imagine my surprise when, as an adult member of the choir, I looked out at the congregation and saw my father making toys dance across the back of a pew to entertain my children. 

He did the genealogy thing, too, tracking down the many branches of the family tree. Some were way in the past (ancestor on the Mayflower, a guy who "dies" multiple times and then turned up again a bit further west). But he also tracked down his niece, the daughter of his brother who we'd last seen when she was a baby. She'd been raised separated from the family; he got her reconnected. 

VI

My father never stopped growing and learning. People making his kind of money can buy toys and fancy houses and cars and vacations in exotic locales (and colored socks), but he invested mostly in books and music and other people and worthwhile causes (even if that occasionally meant supporting groups that opposed each other). If you want to know more about something, go find out. And he would pass all of that on. "Here's a book you should read."  He would offer thoughts about religion to the pastor. He corresponded with all sorts of people; what is the point of learning and discovering if you don't share it with people. His grandchildren have letters from him offering observations about life in general.

Dad managed to be, simultaneously, a person who had very definite ideas about how to navigate the world, but also a person who did not judge you for the decisions you made. During the period when I was blowing up my marriage, it would not have been strange for him to sit me down and demand, "What the hell are you doing, kid?" He did not. I was not made to perform any kind of penance. In another family tale, my sister drove the car, with him in it, through the garage door. "It's just a door," he said as he waved my very alarmed mother off. 

Mom and Dad lived fairly traditional rolls in their marriage, but recently, while contemplating the spate of articles and takes and books about manhood and realized that my father never talked to us about how to be a man, just how to be a person. I have no recollection of ever being given the impression that the rules for Decent Human Being contained special appendices based on your plumbing. 

Treat people well. Be responsible. Help out. Keep learning things. The past is the past, but no matter how bad things have gone, they can do better from this point forward. Family matters. 

VII

Dad kept physically active, but as he aged, obstacles appeared. His heart needed a little extra regulation. His lungs started to let him down. His mind, always sharp, lost some of its edge. A few months ago, the trip to the hospital that led, not home, but to a local hospice facility, a homelike atmosphere in a house that serves just three residents at a time. 

If you've been there, you know the drill. Are we making the right choices? Is he getting better? Holding his own? Losing ground? The more closely you look for an answer, the more the answer changes minute to minute. You stay on high alert while at the same time trying to live your life. My mother made the trip to sit with him every day. He railed at his growing limitations, insisted on physical therapy even if his achievements were as simple as sitting up. No matter how bad things have been, how bad things are, face where you actually are and do your best to move forward. That was never not my father.

The siblings took turns driving and sitting. My sister came from mid-state to help Mom and perk up his days; my brother, now retired from helping run the company our father helped make a success, wrestled with the paperwork. Reading him the cards and letters. Fixing up a music player with Miller tunes. My daughter came and introduced him to his newest granddaughter, named for my mother.

My branch of the family took our planned trip to the lake, tethered to my siblings via Zuckerberg's messenger app every step of the way. We sent pictures; Mom said it pleased him to see the place, his legacy, being used. He had a good day. He had a bad day. 

Then the message: they'd started morphine.

If you've been here, you know that's the sign that the final leg of this journey has begun. We packed up and headed home, running through the careful steps he's written out years ago for closing up camp and leaving it sealed, clean, and ready for the next family to enter it.

He was still in there. He smiled when his grandson and granddaughter-in-law came to announce that they were expecting a baby girl in December. He lost more abilities, but, noted the staff member who had become his BFF, "he can still glare."

A few days ago, his struggles ended.

VIII

He had made his final plans years ago, pre-paid and on file at the funeral home. It was my job to write the obit, but that consisted mostly of editing the obit he had written for himself a decade ago. These days between death and departure are, for some families, a flurry of activity, but my father didn't leave us a lot to do, other than stand by our mother and help her manage.

People deal with these things in their own ways. I haven't cried, much, and I expect that what will happen is that I will encounter some random line of writing or hear a snatch of music and turn into a giant weepy puddle. In the meantime, I deal with things by writing through them--the words collect and organize themselves in my head sometime in the early morning hours and they peck at me until I write them out onto the page. And so here we are.

He was a good person, a smart person, a focused and admirable person who made the world around him better. Another old friend described him as "sweet and interesting," and that's pretty on point as well. He had a good long run, and he didn't waste a bit of it, but I wish there were more. His is a great story, and while he will no longer actively participate in it, it's certainly not over. It is trite and cliche to say that he'll live on through his family and the work that he did and the mark he left in his community, but while it is trite and cliche it is also absolutely true. 

Know what matters, and walk steadily toward it without fanfare or complaint. May his memory be a blessing.