Education and Hierarchies

At her newsletter, Jennifer Berkshire has an excellent post this week-- I'm here to say two things. "Go read it" and "Yes, and..."

In "The Brutal Logic Behind Dismantling the Department of Education," Berkshire points out that much of the dismantling is aimed at outcomes like getting fewer students to attend college. There are a variety of reasons for this, including the idea that colleges were captured by crazy left-wingers in the seventies (e.g. Chris Rufo's "Laying Siege to the Institutions" speech) and the notion that going to college is distracting women from the important work of being baby-makers (e.g. the Heritage Foundation's wacky theories). 

Berkshire points to the Curtis Yarvin theory that we need a techno-monarch, and that requires us to demolish the "cathedral,' the set of institutions that make ordinary people believe they Know Stuff and don't need to be ruled over.

But I think the heart of the matter is captured by Berkshire in this portion of the post:

The creepiest story I read this week had nothing to do with education but with the effort to rebuild the US semiconductor industry known as the CHIPS program. Employees in the CHIPS program office have been undergoing a now-familiar ritual: demonstrating their intellectual worth and abilities to Trump officials.

In late February, Michael Grimes, a senior official at the Department of Commerce and former investment banker at Morgan Stanley, conducted brief interviews with employees of the CHIPS Program Office, which oversees the grants.

In interactions some described as “demeaning,” Mr. Grimes asked employees to justify their intellect by providing test results from the SAT or an IQ test, said four people familiar with the evaluations. Some were asked to do math problems, like calculate the value of four to the fourth power or long division.

What does demanding IQ or SAT test results from engineers have to do with the dismantling of the Department of Education? Everything. If you start from the assumption that IQ is, not just fixed, but genetically determined, as many Trump intellectuals do, there is little case to be made for public schools that try to equalize outcomes—it can’t be done. Far better to shovel cashes at the would-be ‘cognitive elite’ (an apt description of vouchers for the well-to-do, when you think about it) than to redistribute resources to the ‘lessers.’ It’s a bleak and brutal view of the world and one that holds increasing sway on the right.

I've been talking for years about the idea that Betters and Lessers drive much ed reform. When Betsy DeVos talks about letting parents and students find the right fit for an education, what she means is that students should get the education that is appropriate for their station. No higher education for you future meat widgets!

The underlying idea is that people are not equal and that "merit" is a measure of how much Right Thinking a person does. But the important part is that there are natural hierarchies in the world and to try to lift the Lessers up from their rightful place on the bottom rungs of society's ladder is an unnatural offense against God and man. Using social safety nets or other programs to try to make their lives suck less is simply standing between them and the natural, deserved consequences of their lack of merit-- after all, if they didn't deserve to be poor, they wouldn't be poor. Life is supposed to be hard for the Lessers, and trying to make it less hard is an offense against God and man. And it is doubly offensive when we tax the Betters to fund this stuff.

For these folks, education is not supposed to be about uplift, but about sorting and suiting people for their proper place in society. This sorting could be done more efficiently if the sorting happened before they even got to school, if, in fact, the school system itself was already set up with several tiers so that Betters and Lessers could have their own schools.

I've argued for years that the free market is a lousy match for public education because the free market picks winners and loser, not just among vendors, but among customers. But for a certain type of person, that's a feature, not a bug. The Lessers shouldn't get a big fancy school with lots of programs because all they need is enough math and reading to make them employable at the Burger Store. 

Public schools also offend Betters sensibilities by trying to uphold civil rights. Berkshire nails this:

At the heart of the Trumpist intellectual project is a relatively straight-forward argument. The civil rights revolution in this country went too far and it’s time to start rolling it back. As Jack Schneider and I argue in our recent book, The Education Wars, the role that public schools have historically played in advancing civil rights makes them particularly vulnerable in this moment of intense backlash. It’s why the administration has moved with such ferocity against the most recent effort to extend civil rights through the schools—to transgender students. And it’s why the cuts to the Department of Education have fallen so heavily on its civil rights enforcement role. Of the agency's civil rights offices across the country, only five are still open.

 For some of these folks, civil rights are NOT for every human being who draws breath. Civil rights are only for those who deserve them by merit and by station and by Right Thinking. 

The idea of public education as a means of uplift for every student, undergirded by a system that protects and honors the civil rights of every person simply has no place in a certain view of the nation. And that certain view is currently in charge. 

Kevin O'Leary Gets an F in Education

There are some bad ideas that just won't die, and all it takes is some over-inflated rich guys with a platform to keep them alive.

Enter Kevin O'Leary, a Canadian successful businessman, middling TV personality, and failed politician. He made his big pile in software (SoftKey), tried running for office, did some television reality show stints, and is currently a crypto guy and turns up on Shark Tank. All of that, of course, qualifies him to opine about education over the airwaves. 

He did so on CNN's NewsNight on Tuesday, where he offered his theory about US student test scores.

Why? Unions. Unions that keep mediocre teachers in place in every high school in America when we should be firing them.

Yes, it's the old Fire Our Way To Excellence idea again.  

I would like to fire teachers... and I'd like to pay a lot more to the teachers that advance Math and Reading scores that push our system forward... We have broken the system long ago through unions.

And also

The lowest paid person in America that deserves a lot more money is a great teacher... and we can't in the system of unions in America, we keep mediocrity festering. We're destroying the education system.

Well, this should be easy to test. The states that have the weakest teacher unions should have the best paid and the highest scores. States like Oklahoma and Texas and the Carolinas and Mississippi and Arkansas and Louisiana and Florida and Georgia-- oh, I see a pattern here. Low pay, low test results. Apparently when you stomp on unions, you don't get instant school awesomeness. 

How do we find these mediocre teachers to fire them? We've been over this before-- using tests as a measure creates all sorts of problems, from trying to measure student growth on through using math and reading scores to judge teachers who don't teach math and reading. 

And if we do fire teachers, how easy is it to just go pick some new ones off the Excellent Teacher Tree? 

O'Leary also reinforces the odious notion that the whole purpose of schools is to crank out math and reading scores, which is a giant honking to show that he understands neither assessment nor the whole purpose of education. 

I graduated from teacher school in 1979. and one thing has never, ever changed-- the level of confident assumed expertise of some folks because they went to school. What has changed is the degree to which media outlets aggressively feed them baloney, confirming their worst guesses. But our problem in education is now the country's-- how to make progress with people who don't know what they don't know, and who know with utter certainty some things that just aren't so.

Ed Department: Worst of All Worlds

For a while this morning, CNN was running a curious quote from Neal McClusky, Education Guy at Cato Institute. 

If [Trump] says, 'We're going to have a 50% reduction in staff,' there is reason to be concerned about how the system will work: Is that enough people? We're going to learn whether or not they can do the job with fewer of them.

Some folks pounced on that quote (which seems to have since disappeared from the story) as "proof" that Cato wanted government to work after all, but as McClusky reassured his Twitter followers, he was as adamantly against the department as always (true that--say what you like, but McClusky is nothing if not consistent). 

But his comments on the halving of the department shows how MAGA can have the worst of all possible worlds.

McMahon has reiterated that her intent is to dismantle the department entirely, and I have argued that this would get in the way of the Truskian goal of using funding as leverage to force school districts to comply. Except that I may have given them too much credit, because one of the big piles of money that they have to use as leverage is IDEA funding, and it turns out that McMahon isn't even sure what IDEA is, as she revealed to Laura Ingraham. “Well, do you know what? I’m not sure I can tell you exactly what it stands for, except that it’s the programs for disabled and needs [students].”

So I suppose asking for a detailed list of which positions were cut and how it was determined that they were excess-- yeah, never mind. What we've seen at this point is "a bunch of everything."

But if they can cut the department to the point that it can't do its jobs, that's nearly as good as dismantling it. Especially since it sets up an argument before Congress of "Look, the thing isn't working anyway, so you might as well dissolve it."

I have spent plenty of time bitching about the department, which has birthed one dumb idea after another while simultaneously failing to aggressively pursue the objective of making sure all children get the equitable chance for education they're entitled to. But this is not a move that can even pretend to be about doing a better job (nor, to be fair, has anybody pretended that's what this is about). The Department put many education-related grants under one roof rather than requiring districts and states to go paper chasing different pieces of the government for their pile of money. And the department offered protection to students whose rights to a non-sucky education were threatened. Plus bonuses like teacher training assistance, which is also axed.

So now we move to keeping those functions in the department, but requiring the department to do it badly, a sort of enforced inefficiency. 

McMahon represents a different brand of uninformed incompetence from Betsy DeVos. DeVos was so bad at her job, she couldn't get much of anything done. McMahon doesn't know what she's doing--but to just smash stuff up, she doesn't have to know much. "I want a new computer," says your child, and you reply that they already have a perfectly good one, even if it's a little slow and doesn't work exactly the way they want it to. So they smash it with a rock. "Can I have a new computer now?"

Presidents Musk and Trump have gone after any piece of government that is about taking care of others, especially if it's got plenty of money lying around that could be used to prop up private corporations. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to rescue the department of education any time soon.

Money, Lies, God, and Education

Want a guide that helps make sense of our Christian [sic] nationalist moment, including education. Katherine Stewart has published it.

Katherine Stewart's The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism came out in 2019, but it is still essential reading for our current moment. One line that really hit me when I read it was this one:

It [Christian nationalism] asserts that legitimate government rests not on the consent of the governed but adherence to the doctrines of a specific religious, ethnic, and cultural heritage.

In other words, it rejects democracy. And as I read her new book, Money, Lies, and God as the current regime started tromping through government, it occurred to me that it's not just the legitimacy of government that depends on alignment with a particular set of values-- 

It's the legitimacy, value, rights, and humanity of individual persons that depends on adherence to the right doctrines.  When President Musk says that empathy can destroy civilization, when MAGA trot out dehumanizing language like the R word, it's one more sign that some people don't matter. 

Ideas like universal civil rights, the kind of thing we're in the habit of assuming as given, are not accepted by these folks. Bizarre ideas like the Trumpian inversion of civil rights and discrimination make sense if you assume that only some people have rights and only some people can be discriminated against because only some people are aligned with proper values and only those people are entitled to civil rights. Of course, only those people deserve to be in charge, to rule over those others who, because of their spiritual and ideological failings aren't fully real humans.

Remember this, and everything else makes sense.

In the new book, Stewart lays out four elements of the Christian [sic] nationalist mindset. (She also spends a couple of chapters on education-- I'll get there). Stewart argues that it's not so much an ideological checklist, but this set of views that characterizes the movement.

First, the belief that America is going straight to hell. We are surrounded by evil powers that threaten everything we care about. Every election is apocalyptic, every opponent an existential threat. I recognize this from the many loud complaints about Joe Biden. I would characterize the Biden presidency as a return to the tradition of mediocre white guys in charge, but for folks in the movement he was such a huge agent of satan, and he is still invoke to fuel that fearful reaction.

See it to in the narrative that education has been "captured" by Godless socialist lefties who have installed pedophiles and groomers in every classroom, waiting for the chance to de-penisify your sons. 

Second is the persecution complex. White Christian (particularly men) are under attack, besieged and put upon. Stewart cites a survey in which the vast majority of Christian nationalists say that white folks experience just as much or more discrimination as minority groups. She also argues that it's not so much economic anxiety as status or culture anxiety that drives the movement (though I can see how money serves as a stand-in for status).

Third is the notion that Christian [sic] nationalists have a "unique and privileged connection to this land." The insistence that this is a Christian nation, and therefor tied to Christian roots, means that it makes sense to them to insist that the Bible be in classrooms and prayer in schools. People who are aligned to the correct set of values and beliefs are entitled to rights and privileges that other people are not.

The fourth piece of the mindset that "Jesus may have great plans for us, but the reality is that this is a cruel place in which only the cruel survive." So what others may seem as punitive policies of unnecessary and deliberate cruelty ("the cruelty is the point") are not so much an expression of anger and hatred as a desire to force people to see the world as it really is. What some see as a deliberate attempt to make life shitty for others can be, from the Christian [sic] nationalist mindset, an almost-kind attempt to tear peoples' blinders off so they can see and deal with the world as it really is-- shitty.

Put those four together and you get the look at how these folks tick, and once again, it's not because they are stupid and/or evil. It's not a new set of views-- the Puritans would nod along with most of this and, as I would tell my 11th grade students, if you wanted a mindset that would equip a group of people to survive and persevere the nightmarish conditions that those first pilgrims faced, you couldn't do much better. Southern colonists might have been sustained by the promise of wealth and independence, but the Massachusetts crowd could rest secure in knowing that live is always a cruel struggle, but as people with a special connection to God, they would take their place at the top of this particular mountain. Now their descendants are pissed off that a bunch of people who don't even have that special connection to the Correct God are being carried up to the top of the mountain via an easy trip that they haven't even earned by being Right People.

Stewart looks at education. She gives a section to a pretty thorough look at how Moms for Liberty leverage the idea that Moms have "special moral authority" (even if the Moms are seasoned political activists). She also takes a look at the crowd that argues that since school prayer was abolished, schools have become "temples of secular humanism" that teach, as Oklahoma's education dudebro-in-chief Ryan Walters, atheism as a secular religion. Stewart attended a M4L gathering, and those pictures are stunning. Stewart has a sharp eye, an ability to spot the moments that really capture and illuminate the larger picture.

Stewart says there are two basic types of groups undermining public education-- the Proselytizers and the Privatizers. Both have powerful backers, and Stewart has done an exhaustive job of locating and naming names. They share a desire to dismantle public education as it is and repurpose the funding for religious organizations and private schools, all intended to bring up students who believe their preferred brand of religion and/or their preferred brand of conservative politics (because part of the persecution they suffer under is a society that indoctrinates children into Wrong Thinking, so if they can just capture institutions, they can properly indoctrinate children in Right Thinking. to which millions of teachers say, "Good luck with that").

Again, not new. Stewart quotes Jerry Falwell from 1979, dreaming of "a day when there are no more public schools; churches will have taken them over and Christians will be running them." She also nods back To Milton Friedman's 1955 paper that laid the groundwork for the idea of education not as a public good, but as a consumer item that gets bought and sold on the open market where consumers get what they can afford. If they can't afford much, well, life is cruel and human beings aren't equal and if you got the short end of the stick, that's your problem.

As one member of the Ziklag group explains, the goal is not to "just throw stones," but to "take down the education system as we know it today."

In Mr. Lancaster's System, Adam Laats talks about how early 19th century reformers wanted a school system to help deal with all those naughty children out on the streets. I wonder if the future imagined by some of these folks would take us back around to that concern, or if the wealthy this time would just build higher walls for their gated communities.

Stewart's book is well-sourced and pulls apart the many layers and differences within the many parts of the movement. She has done a ton of leg work and interviews, resulting in a book that is illuminating and instructive, if not particularly encouraging. But these days there's a lot of noise and smoke and not-particularly-useful theories about what is happening and why; this book brings some much-needed clarity to our difficult moment in US history. For folks whose focus has been mostly on education, this helps put the education debates in a wider context. I strongly recommend this one. 

ICYMI: Sleepy Morning Edition (3/9)

Did you reset your clock? You know--that one clock in your house that doesn't reset itself? Go ahead. I'll wait.

I finally joined the Washington Post exodus. I have a sentimental attachment to the paper; Valerie Strauss championed and occasionally printed my work, and that didn't just widen my audience, but was one of the few things that caused my co-workers to notice that I was Up To Something. But Strauss has moved on and Jeff Bezos has decried that the paper will espouse no opinions other than his, and while I know enough journalism history to know that this is not a new and unheard of feature in the newspaper biz, I don't have to pay for the privilege.  

I have been doing this weekly digest post for almost ten years now, and it feels more necessary than ever, as the media landscape becomes increasingly unreliable. Amplification of important ideas is a critical responsibility of folks in the social media world so do share. Also, a side note-- I do not include in this digest pieces that I addressed in a regular post, but share those, too. 

Okay, here we go.

Diversity, Political Culture and Middle School Band

I do love it when Nancy Flanagan gets a little salty. Here she looks at the anti-diversity directive from the Department of Education and finds the fingerprints of Big Brother.

What Now for Democrats for Education Reform?

DFER, the privatizers in Democrat's clothing, are having some trouble. Good. They've earned it. Maurice Cunningham has the story for The Progressive.

Introducing the Juicero, Only for Reading

It's the dumbest product ever, only this time for reading. John Warner offers a reality-based response.

A Rural Alaska School Asked the State to Fund a Repair. Nearly Two Decades Later, the Building Is About to Collapse.

On the ground, it is not always about high-falutin' policy issues. Sometimes it's just about providing a safe building. For ProPublica and KYUK, Emily Schwing has the story.

"Educational Pluralism" as Another Name for Privatization

Thomas Ultican looks at a recent The 74 article that asks, why can't we just be more like Europe. 

When America Persecutes Its Teachers

Clay Risen at The Atlantic walks us through some history as a reminder that going after teachers for having ideas of which the government does not approve--that's not a new thing. In particular, a look at when the red scare came to the schoolhouse.

The GOP is Cracking Up Over School Vouchers

Jennifer Berkshire looks at the voucher-related cracks in the MAGA coalition. If only there were an opposing political party that could take advantage of them.

AI Chatbots have telltale quirks. Researchers can spot them with 97% accuracy

Well, perhaps. But it's still something.

"Do It Yourself" - a Poem

David Lee Finkle heard rumors that his students were using online summaries to "read" the assignment. So he wrote a poem.

TN Lawmakers Seek To Deny Education To Some Kids

Andy Spears reports on a Tennessee bill aimed at challenging the SCOTUS decision that ruled that undocumented children still get an education.

Influencers and Expertise

Audrey Watters shares more important connections about ed tech. Also, a mildly disturbing picture of a goose.

I, Human

It's behind the New York Times paywall, but this guest essay by Margaret Renkl is a beautiful statement of support for the human touch over the AI assistants plaguing us.(H/T Larry Cuban)

Media Manufactures Mississippi "Miracle" (Again)

Paul Thomas again debunks the "miraculous" reading achievements of Mississippi.

NCLB’s Curse: 12 Reasons Reading Scores are STILL Poor

Nancy Bailey breaks down a dozen ways that the curse of NCLB is still with us and our students.

A Two-Legged Stool

Steve Nuzum reports from South Carolina, where a school voucher bill was struck down by the state court, so legislators decided to just try passing the same thing again.

DeWine’s Budget Includes Full Phase-In of OH Fair School Funding Plan. Why Will Majority of School Districts Lose Funding?

Jan Resseger tries to sort out the new Ohio mystery-- how can a boost in school funding be turned into a cut? 

Simon says Focus on Students, Not Just Their Ability to Take a Test

It's a miracle. There's a legislator in Florida who is trying to help public schools. Sue Kingery Woltanski shares this improbably story.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education: A Direct Threat to America’s Schools

Julian Vasquez Heilig breaks down the issues raised by dismantling the Department of Education. Pretty comprehensive look.

Texas and Florida Are Canary in Coal Mine of Schools Run by Uncertified Teachers

Eleanor Bader reports for Truthout on the growing problem. Good look at the national issue.

First Black Graduate

Akil Bello has set out to collect a particular data point-- when did colleges have their first Black graduate? It's an interesting pile of information (and you might be able to help collect info). It's also kind of discouraging, but as he says, it feels like information we ought to have.

The government doesn't know that AGI is coming

Benjamin Riley contests the claims that computers with human-ish intelligence are right around the corner.

Feel free to sign up for my newsletter, which will freely pop whatever I've been writing into your email inbox for free.

More Big Brother Tech

This week Axios reported a scoop that takes us to another extension of the surveillance state. Big Brother wishes he could have pulled this off.

The State Department has set out to catch foreign students who support Hamas and eject them from the country, and they are going to do it by using AI to scan student social media accounts. 

I don't want to argue about Hamas vs Israel here. I do want to note the absolute terrifying level of surveillance being used here. AI will scan the internet, scrape up whatever, and flag anyone who has displayed a Double Plus Ungood idea so that the government can then take action against that person. 

Today it's foreign students who express too much sympathy for Hamas. But tomorrow? There are no limits, other than legal guardrails, a bureaucratic sense of decency, and a lack of imagination. So maybe tomorrow we scan teacher social media accounts to see who is doing forbidden diversity stuff. Maybe we search through government employee accounts to see who can be fired for insufficient loyalty to Dear Leader. 

And of course this would have to be done badly, by training the AI to work from the administration list of Forbidden Words, which gets us such genius moves as removing archival reference to the Enola Gay and various people whose last name was Gay, because, you know-- Don't Say Gay. 

Tying repressive, invasive, rights-violating surveillance to Artificial "Intelligence" is just the chef's kiss to bad policy. AI doesn't read, doesn't understand, doesn't interpret. It acts just as badly as it is trained to act. It does not know better. To use it as a means of tracking down Unapproved Ideas is irresponsible and just plain wrong.

It's an alarming first step, a whole new kind of cyber attack.  

Rural Education Myths

I was in the ruralish education biz for almost my entire teaching career, and one small thing that wears on you is that policy discussions almost always ignore rural needs and realities.

The current Trusk administration buzz saw looks to continue that tradition. Take the privatization of the United States Postal Service-- there are plenty of private delivery services right now, and they mostly won't deliver to our most rural areas (they hand those packages off to the USPS). 

School "choice" policies are built on assumption of a relatively large, dense market. Meanwhile, Catholic private schools in my county have closed because they couldn't get enough students to enroll, and there are no private options springing up in their place. Like rural delivery, it's a market private operators don't want to enter because it's too hard to make money serving it. \

If, for instance, Title I funds turn into block grants and those turn into vouchers, rural areas will take a double hit-- a loss of needed Title I funds for the public school and no options for any sort of private vouchery options (this is where folks pop up to chirp "Oh, but you could start a micro-school" because everyone enjoyed that so much during the pandemic and also it works great in places with sub-optimal wi-fi connections). 

So many people don't get small towns and rural areas (e.g. every movie and tv show depiction of a small town), and that includes people who create policy. 

There's a nice piece in The Conversation by Sheneka Williams, Darren DuBose, and Kimberly Clarida, three Michigan State University rural education researchers, in which they distill much of their research into three important but unrecognized truths about rural education.

Rural communities are becoming more diverse.

The three researchers are talking mostly about race, and that is on point-- rural areas are not all white any more. There are increasingly people of color in these communities.

From 2010 to 2020, over 2 million white people left rural communities, while more than 2 million people of color took their place. The number of rural people who identified as multiracial doubled to nearly 4 million over the same period, and all rural communities except those in Arizona saw an increase in their Latino population.

That tracks. So does a point made by rural Missouri blogger Jess Piper, who points out that most rural people are not farmers. Politicians often calculate that if they address some sort of farm policy, then you've done your bit for the rural vote. 

But the typical rural family is not some redneck farmer. Rural areas include a broad range of human beings engaged in a broad range of human endeavors. Though I will say there's one things that rural areas mostly don't have-- super-rich people. I've always maintained that's one of the many, many reasons that trickle down economics fails; there's nobody here in my region to trickle down on the rest of us. And my region provides a sort of laboratory of that, because 150-ish years ago we became the center of the oil industry. We were loaded with rich folks, and to this day we live amongst the many benefits that their wealth brought to town (though some of those gifts have become troublesome white elephants). Then that ended, and we're all quite aware of the money that isn't here and what we aren't able to get done. Sooner or later, if you want stuff, somebody with money has to invest it, spend it on your community. It's not strictly a rural problem-- read Andre Perry's Know Your Price to see how it happens for certain urban communities. 

But I digress. Point is, folks working from a stereotypical picture of who lives in rural communities and what the need (or don't) is working from the wrong script, so they'll get the wrong answers.

Rural educators know how to succeed.

Rural schools lack resources, but rural teachers are expert at working around that lack (which is not to say they couldn't be even better with the resources). The three writers also show this as essentially an extension of the previous point--because folks in high places don't really understand the nature of rural communities, the cultural capital of rural areas is ignored.

One glaring example is that rural communities are rarely represented in teaching materials and curricula, which frequently ignore their local knowledge, traditions and values. This creates a gap in students’ ability to see themselves in jobs and positions outside of their personal contexts. And it hampers teachers’ ability to leverage student strengths when teachers are unprepared to connect with their backgrounds.

There are teachers in rural schools who are prepared to connect--they are the teachers who grew up in those same communities. But they are very much in a Do It Yourself situation. 

The researchers also make the point that policy makers favor things like closure and consolidation of schools. Pennsylvania is a perfect example. In the 1960's, the state had a huge number of small borough and township school districts, and the state pushed consolidation (yes, our current 500 districts is considerably fewer than previously). That left many smaller communities with one school; that school often served as a community hub, and a major source of property value and tax base in that community. When the last fifteen years of further consolidation and closure came along, those single schools were closed, delivering a hammer blow both culturally and financially. There are plenty of factors that created the pressures behind these moves, but at no point did policy makers stand up for rural schools and communities and try to hold back this wave that has hollowed out many rural communities.

Rural educators know how to tap into local resources, knowing that little support is coming from the state or federal government. But policy makers rarely make an attempt to tap those resources.

Rural students are high achievers

The trio notes that students in rural schools score higher on math and reading tests than urban students, and rural students have a higher graduation rate. 

What rural students lack is the extras that non-rural students enjoy. From summer programs to enrichment programs to personal SAT coaches, nonrural students have opportunities that rural students do not. Rural students end up with lower going-to-college numbers. 

There's no earthly reason to imagine that rural students are any less capable than their nonrural counterparts. None. 

It is a myth that rural schools are filled with farm kids who aren't all that bright being taught by teachers who are less-than. It is not a myth that rural schools are under-represented and simply -- I can't say ignored, because to ignore something you have to see it and deliberately look past it. Rural education is more commonly invisible to folks in the policy world. 

I expect that problem is likely to be even worse under the current regime. Guttung funding as a prelude to privatization will be a double slam for rural districts. Those districts will see a loss of funding and will have limited ability to replace those funds by raising local taxes. At the same time, they are not attractive markets for any high quality education-flavored businesses; those communities are more likely to end up with a "school" aisle in their local Dollar General. Rural students deserve better.