Federal Anti-LGBTQ Students Bills

I wish it were more complicated than this, but it isn't.

For cultural right-wingers, the idea is that the dominant culture in this nation should be white (European), male, (a certain type of) Christian, and unfailingly straight.

Add "with wealth and poverty flowing towards those who deserve them" and you get right wing free marketeer.

Add "because God says so" and you get Christian nationalist.

And to get MAGA, you add anger and vengefulness aimed at anyone who ever dared to contradict any of the above.

We've seen the varieties of anti-LGBTQ bills championed on the state level, from censoring books that dare to mention that such persons exist to requiring schools to force all students to perform straight identities, regardless of how true those may be.

Unfortunately, we're seeing more of the same baloney on the federal level, especially in the House.

Back in May, the House passed a bill entitled "The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act" (so..um.. SIPKA?). It's short and simple. 

For one, it would forbid any ESEA funds being used to teach "gender ideology," and if you're wondering what exactly that is, the bill refers you to Donald Trump's executive order Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which defines "gender ideology" in part as "the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one's sex." That's part of a long rant that boils down to "biology and science say there are just two sexes and so your gender is determined by your genitals period the end shut up" which ignores the actual science of sex. But opposition to "gender ideology" is a particular type of marker, indicating someone who doesn't want to argue that LGBTQ people do not actually exist, and that anyone who claims otherwise is delusional or stupid or evil.

The other part of the bill requires schools to obtain parent permission before making any accommodations for "gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form" for a student in elementary or middle grades. Works fine except for all those students whose parents do not support or accept them. 

House Education and Workforce Committee also reported out HR 8705-- "Civics and History Advancement to Restore Learning, Integrity and Education Act" (CHARLIE Act, because they are determined they really think they've got something with that guy).  Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah tossed this one out there, and it's more of the same--                          

The bill says "no funds may be used for discriminatory equity ideology or gender ideology." You may have missed the part where Dear Leader tossed out "Discriminatory Equity Ideology" as an alternative meaning for DEI, but it's once again the notion that anything that tries to push straight white male Christians out of the spotlight on center stage is Very Bad and is, in fact, discrimination. 

But by censoring any piece of history education that doesn't center straight white Christian men, these guys hope to restore balance and fairness. They are so sure that they lost that center stage spot because evil lefties took over education and started indoctrinating children-- so the obvious solution is to get in there and start indoctrinating children to the right way of thinking. 

"We just want neutral instruction," say the supporters, believing in their hearts that a truly neutral view of American history and society would present straight white Christian men in a central spot.\

Well, none of this is new, but it's worth noticing that these kinds of attempts to enforce the culture right's ideology on students is now getting pushed at the federal level (you know-- the level where MAGA says they want to send control of schools back to the states). Now is no time to stop contacting your elected representatives, no matter who they are. 

PA: Center for Cyber Charter Information

I've referred to their work many times over the past few years, but I want to take a moment to plug Education Voters of Pennsylvania. They are an exceptional resource for information about privatization shenanigans in Pennsylvania.

In particular, they have become the commonwealth's premiere source for information about the cyber charter industry, in no small part because they have been willing to drag the cybers back into court time and time again, because even though the cyber industry loves to hoover up mountains of taxpayer dollars, they would really rather not be accountable to taxpayers for how those dollars are spent. Repeatedly confronted by the Right To Know laws in the state that require them to make public their financial activities, cybers continue to fall back on the tactic of "Make me! Take me to court, I dare you!" And EVP has, and in the process they have accumulated an extraordinary pile of data.

Previously EVP put out a series of posts-- "Cyber Charter Waste of the Week" -- now all included in one page of the EVP website. These break down the huge piles of taxpayer dollars being spent on things like sports team sponsorships, marketing swag, and Amazon gift cards. 

In an entire report, EVP breaks down the millions of dollars of dollars spent on advertising, as well as the lousy return in actual students achievement. 

There is a report on the massive hoarding of assets (including a massive real estate empire). There's a raft of advocacy tools for people who want to get involved but aren't quite sure how. 

And there's a new transparency hub, where you can look at the documents that EVP has managed to claw out of cyber charter hands, including actual minutes of Board of Trustees meetings for those schools. EVP has put financial transparency documents there as well. 

This is one of EVP's strengths-- they always show their work, so you can check for yourself. 

Every state needs an organization like Education Voters of Pennsylvania to bring transparency to how certain education-flavored businesses are handling the dollars that taxpayers contributed for educating students (and not for enriching charter executives). For Pennsylvanians and those who follow Pennsylvania education issues, it's a huge help. For folks in other states, it's a model. 

Government Picks "Real" Religions

I have argued a gazillion times that allowing when a government makes noise about protecting religious liberty and putting God back in assorted government places, they are really talking about exerting government control over religion. And now we've got one more example to add to the list.

The list already includes some classics. Like the time that Florida thought they would be clever by authorizing pseudo-chaplains (with the all the title and none of the training) to get into public schools. As they are wont to do, the Satanic Temple immediately announced their intention to get their own chaplains in the field, and Governor DeSantis declared that they were not a real religion and wouldn't be allowed (despite the law clearly saying that even people with no religion at all could be pseudo-chaplains). 

Even the bill's sponsor was smart enough to see the problem here (and it's not Satan). Senator Erin Grall told Soule:

I think that as soon as we get in the middle of defining what is religion and what is not, and whether or not someone can be available and be on a list, we start to run (into) constitutional problems.

We have multiple examples of states opening up a voucher program to fund private religious schools and then having a fit because it turns out that there is such a thing as a non-Christian religious school, and they would really like to not have that.  

And there are those states, like Texas and Florida and Louisiana, that would like to require the posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Only there are multiple versions of the decalogue in the Bible, and more variations to be found among the different religious traditions, even if we're just talking Jewish and Catholic and Protestant traditions. The states were only too happy to dictate their own version of the sacred text, which not only quietly settled centuries of religious debate, but at the same time reduced the sacred text to a secular political offering on par with the Declaration of Independence. Louisiana even helpfully offered some poster ideas that equated Moses with House Speaker Mike Johnson. Really. 

Having chipped away at the wall between church and state, some folks are still doggedly pursuing the idea of making charter schools eligible to collect taxpayer dollars to teach religion to children. People of faith ought to be opposed to this idea (and to their credit, some on the right are very much so) because such a system will inevitably lead to the government deciding which religions are "real" and belong on the list.

For a demonstration, look no further than the Department of Defense, where a list of over 200 recognized religions has been reduced to 31. “This decrease in religious affiliation codes is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of ‘officially approved’ religions,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement issued to the press so that they could not see him roll his eyes in person. 

The Unitarians didn't make the list. The Mormons are upset because the list says they aren't actually Christians, which has been a debated issue since Joseph Smith first talked to angels, but I guess the matter is now settled by the DOD. 

For the gazillionth time-- the First Amendment is not just to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government. Any government Office of Religious Freedom and Awesomeness will inevitably be used to push government control over religion. This goes double for all the attempts to funnel taxpayer dollars to private religious schools and funnel religion to public schools. Sooner or later, there will be a list. 

ICYMI: Board Birthday Edition (6/7)

As of this week, the Board of Directors is now a year older an infinitely wiser. What a party we have had. A fine way to kick off summer vacation. Most of my grandchildren, located in other parts of the country, must labor on for a couple more weeks, so best wishes to them and their parents. But here at the home office, things look pretty much like this.

But I still have things for you to read. Here's the list. 

The Machine They Built to Dismantle Public Education

Miss Frazzled is a widely-followed voice in the teacher and education space, and she has written this comprehensive view of the work being done to dismantle education. Definitely worth the read.

Colorado’s ‘first public Christian school’ closes permanently

Colorado wanted to be on the forefront of legalizing religion in a "public" school, but that dream is going to have to wait, because their trend-setting "public Christian school" has shut down. Ann Schimke reports for Chalkbeat.

Legislators scramble to try to make EdChoice Constitutional. They can't.

Ohio's big voucher program has been ruled unconstitutional, and besides fighting that ruling in the courts, the legislature is trying to tweak the law to make it not so constitution violatey. Stephen Dyer says they might as well give up.

A Koch-connected school choice contractor could get $2 million from Florida taxpayers

Oh look. The Kochtapus is going to try some of those sweet federal voucher dollars. Courtesy of Florida, of course. 

Can AI Handle Parent-Teacher Conferences?

Nancy Flanagan looks at the prospects of using AI to help with parent-teacher conferences. Just simulations, mind you. Because a bot can definitely simulate a parent.

Misunderstanding Third-Grade Reading Proficiency: On Resisting Efficiency and Punishment in Reading Policy

Paul Thomas breaks down some details on the zombie policy of retaining third graders.

Who Speaks for Children?

Bruce Lesley is concerned about the loss of some of the infrastructure for children's advocacy. But at least he has a thought about what you can do.

Teachers’ emotions can make or break student learning

A new study from the American Psychological Association suggests that teacher feelings actually affect student learning. Johnathan Kantrowitz explains.

What Landry’s Executive Order on La. Teacher Pay Actually Does (and Doesn’t)

Louisiana's governor made some big-sounding promises. The indispensable Mercedes Schneider looks through the fine print for us.

Trump officials went after dozens of colleges. Now they’re rewriting the rules for all of academia

Sigh. Collin Binkley reports for the AP on the big fat program from Dear Leader's minions to bring higher education to heel.

Must Everything Be About Money?

Speaking of which, what about the new policies focusing on how much graduates with particular degrees make? Steve Nuzum responds. 

The Worst Use Case for Generative AI is Writing

John Warner has been arguing all along that using AI for writing is a terrible idea. Now he's seeing some signs that maybe some folks are catching on.

Most Americans broadly support public education for undocumented students – regardless of their political affiliation and religion

Some actual research showing that actual Americans support a decent approach to educating all children who live in this country.

The Rise of Right-Wing "Biblical Economics"

Katherine Stewart has done exceptional work chronicling Christian nationalism in this country. Here's a look at the idea that God really wants us to be free marketeers.

I’m Trying to Teach Humanity Before It Disappears

An odd headline to find at EdSurge, but Amanda Rosas gets to the challenge of teaching in the age of MAGA.

I might have posted this before. I think of it many times a year, as certain birthdays drive by. It's supposed to be a child's lullaby, but it gets me every time. 

Subscribe! It's free and always will be.

Will Public Schools Benefit From Federal Vouchers?

Discussion has heated up about the federal voucher program and, specifically, whether blue states should opt in, and whether such opt-inning is inevitable. Colorado's Jarid Polis and New York's Kathy Hochul appear to be primed to take Trump Education Dollars. Folks are looking at Pennsylvania's voucher-curious governor Josh Shapiro (I suggested he not, but that may not be enough to keep it from happening). 

The temptation centers around two issues. 

First, people from the state are probably going to take the tax credit that goes with contributing to the voucher program. Shouldn't governors, the argument goes, make sure that money from their own state doesn't end up going to some other state. It's an odd argument, because without the tax credit, those dollars would have gone to DC and on to Lord Knows Where anyway, so it's not like non-participating states are losing anything                    

Second is the assertion that some of this voucher money can be used to fund public schools and not just private ones. Consider, for instance, this slide show from a presentation by Marguerite Roza of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. Roza spent fifteen years at University of Washington's Center for Privatizing Reimagining Public Education (taking one year off to work with the Gates Foundation) and took the Edunomics director's job in 2012. Edunomics folks have thrown their weight behind some bad reformy ideas like the Super Sardinemaster teaching model (fire all the bad teachers and jam all the students into class with the good ones). 

In her slide show, Roza gets one thing exactly right-- the Treasury Department hasn't yet issued the exact rules for the federal vouchers (Education Freedom Tax Credits), so there's a whole lot we don't yet know. 

What seems clear is that the mechanics of the federal vouchers (like all other vouchers) make it hard for public schools to get a piece of the funding stream. The donors hand money to the Scholarship Granting Organization, and the SGO hands the money to a famnily-- not the school. 

So the missing link is the means of having the families hand their money to a public school.

They aren't going to hand it over in the form of tuition, because it's a free public school. Roza suggests there are three "scenarios" under which the public school could get its hands on some of that money.

Scenario 1: Homeschool or private school students who purchase add-ons from the district. I'm not clear what that might involve; at least in Pennsylvania, most of those students are entitled to get extras from their district for free, including everything from advanced classes to extracurriculars like band and theater and sports. In this state, I'm pretty sure the public school couldn't charge an other-schooled student for anything that district students get for free.

Scenario 2: Disrtict students who sign up for "extras" like tutoring, summer programs, etc. Students could even choose "priced electives/clubs, e.g.financial literacy, robotics, possibly APs and VocEd, etc." I don't even know where to start with this. If some of these "extras" are being provided by third parties, klike a tutoring service, then the district doesn't get a penny. But if we are talking about a district that offers some parts of its academic program only for those who will pay for it, that's a crazypants model, a model that takes the "public" right out of public education. 

Especially given some of her examples: "Below grade-level students can opt in to extended yearservices, small group supports, homework help, etc." Are you behind in school? Maybe in danger of not graduating on time? Well, for just a few dollars more, you can get the rest of the education that we promised you!

But that's really just the warm-up for 

Scenario 3: Every district studentparticipates in a bundled set of“enhanced” services.

This is absolute dystopian bullshit, a literal use of the "subscription to unlock what ought to be regular features" model from the world of software. This image is taken straight from the slide:

""Go get us some of that free federal money," declares Imaginary School District, "or your kid will only have access to Public Education Basic, with none of the benefits of our Plus or Premium plans." Look at Roza's hypothetical list. AP classes? Full day K? Orientations!! Mental health!!! What the hell school district charges for that stuff? Surely she also meant to include lunches on her list. 

This is like airline pricing ("You can buy a ticket to fly on our plane, but if you would like to bring luggage or sit down or breathe our air, that will be extra!")

In her presentation, Roza suggested that this is all just a neat way to replace fund raisers. She also suggests that districts could require families to fill out a scholarship form as part of registration. She also recommends you do some arm-twisting of friends and relatives to make their contribution to the SGO that serves your kids. Which would seem to suggest a funding system that re-enforces the already-existing gap between wealthy and non-wealthy districts. Do you have lots of folks who can donate to your district's SGO? No? Well, it's Public Education Basic for you.

This sure seems like a recipe for creating a multi-tier school system, where options that ought to be part of the program become upsells. It's a proposal to lower the floor for what constitutes a minimal free public education down into the basement, with steps out of that basement on a strictly pay-to-play basis. But there's another downside.

This is also a recipe for putting local schools at the mercy of federal operators, because now a major revenue stream will flow through DC. That means federal leverage over local policy ("Get rid of those Naughty Books or you are cut off from federal voucher funds"). There is a certain genius in the federal vouchers in that should MAGA be swept out of office, the revenue flowing through this program will create pressure from even blue states to keep this right wing policy in place. 

The federal voucher program does not support school choice; it's a private school subsidy wrapped in a tax shelter. It's not meant to help public schools, and it won't, unless they are willing to bend themselves into a twisted fun-house mirror version of what a public school system is meant to be. 

Historian Adam Laats points out that this kind of public subsidy for private schools has a history of failure, And a zillion people have pointed out that this voucher, like all voucher's, is about the school's choice, not school choice (because your right to choose is not nearly as sacred as school operators' right to discriminate against any children for any reason). 

And maybe that's part of the point of these various attempts to sell the idea that this will be a subsidy for public schools as well as private schools. Except, of course, if the federal government really wanted to subsidize public schools, they could just do it or, at the very least, stop trying to slash the meager amount of funding that they do provide, instead of sending the money to public schools via this long, twisty path. Honestly, this whole "federal vouchers will benefit public schools" argument is the kind of convoluted baloney that only a thinky tank wizard or a government bureaucrat could love. Which, unfortunately, doesn't mean it won't work. 

The Case Against Cheating (And AI)

As schools and teachers have tried to pressure their students to stay away from AI use, they have recapitulated many of the same old arguments against cheating in its traditional forms. 

We English teachers have railed against shortcuts since CliffsNotes first reared their "study guide" heads back in 1958. Then the internet begat SparkNotes and its ilk. And it was always a mistake to frame the argument as some sort of moral or ethical issue. "You're a bad person if you cheat on this assignment," is not a useful message for young humans for many reasons, not the least of which is that they hear variations on "You're a bad person if..." a lot.

As it turns out, the best arguments against old school cheating are equally valid against new school high tech cheating, or just plain AI "augmentation."

Anything worth doing is worth doing yourself

"I would really like to kiss this highly engaging and exciting human being in front of me, so I am going to get someone else to do it and tell me what it was like," said nobody, ever.

You get the most out of life's experiences by, you know, experiencing them. You could sit in a cave somewhere and let your tech feed you a regular summary of what is going on outside, but what would be the point? You find your best self, you learn how to be fully human in the world, by being in the world. 

Too many adults, and far too many adults who work in schools, feed the narrative that students are in some sort of holding pattern, that their real lives in the real world will start further down the road. That's just not true. Your life is going on right now, even if you are not yet an adult. So experience it first hand. And yes, that includes the work that you've been given to do in school. 

Of course, "anything worth doing" is doing some heavy lifting here. That part falls on the teachers. It's part of their job to make sure they are bringing students together with things that are, in fact, worth doing; then they have the task of making the "worth doing" case to students. 

Lying is corrosive

Everyone has seen the memo explaining that lying is wrong. But it's also important to understand that lying is corrosive and self-damaging. And it's nearly impossible to cheat without lying. And lying is corrosive.

Lying builds barriers in relationships; in particular, it ruins trust, and without trust as a foundation, it is difficult to build or sustain any sort of relationship with other human beings. Lying creates a brutal sort of isolation, in which you alone are the only person who knows the truth of your own story. That kind of isolation is the usual root of the whole existential angst thing anyway, but to add the barriers that come with lying just makes it so much worse. 

As I told my students a gazillion times, life is too short to put your name to a lie.

Protect your brain

You do not build muscles by hiring someone else to lift weights in your name. Students are developing their minds, strengthening their brains. There is a natural tendency to draw back from the friction and pain involved, but that's how you build things.

Your brain is the toolbox that will hold every tool you'll need to make your way through the world, both personally and professionally. The more, better tools you collect, the more choices you will have in life. We know that offloading cognitive work to AI is not good for people. It's not good for adults and degrades the tools in their mental toolboxes, but for young humans who are supposed to be accumulating those tools the effects could be even worse-- the absence of necessary tools as they enter the adult world.

It is becoming increasingly clear that AI is not for amateurs, that it is only useful for people who are already knowledgeable about the field in question. Students are not those people. 

You are going to need your brain your whole life, and your school years are the chance to pack it with as many bits of knowledge and skill you can get your mental mitts on. Do not use AI to shortchange that process.

This requires the kind of long term thinking that young humans does not always come easily to young humans. But we adults have to keep reminding them that the work is not to generate an assignment that you can hand in tomorrow, but to wrestle with the work in ways that will help them accumulate the knowledge and skills that will help them move through the world. Speedruns and shortcuts will not help with that. 

Don't avoid cheating or cutting corners or just getting a little extra help because it's Very Naughty. Avoid all of these with either AI or old school methods, because they get in the way of the work of building your self and your life. That should your measure in all things-- is this a tool for helping you grow and live, or a means of avoiding engaging with growth and life? Don't choose the latter. 

Can Schools Play Catch-Up?

From its launch as Campbell Brown's attempt to be a major education player in anti-public ed politics, The74 has become a very mixed bag. Sometimes they publish valuable journalism about education, and sometimes they roll out junk like this article about using AI to help schools get students caught up, an article mostly impressive in how it manages to get so much wrong in such a little space.

Everyone just run faster than that guy-- go catch up

The piece is by Daniel Weisberg. Weisberg has deep reformster credentials; the former lawyer was First Deputy Chancellor of schools in NYC under Joel Klein and David Banks and is a Broad Foundation fellow. He was CEO of TNTP, the sister organization for Teach for America, where he attacked teacher job protections and oversaw blog-posts-disguised-as-reports like The Widget Effect and The Opportunity Myth that lacked substance and accuracy, but which provided cover for reformsters to act like their ideas were grounded in something other their personal preferences. He's no stranger to controversy, having been implicated in a scandal under Banks/Adams. 

Weisberg has never shown a particularly strong grasp of teaching or education, and this article doesn't break his streak. 

"America's schools are terrible at catching kids up" Weisberg says, a sentence he puts in its very own paragraph to help make it pop.

This is just so dumb. The whole discourse around "catching kids up" is just dumb.

What's the hope here? Let's take a student who is behind by, say, three months of material. So to catch that student up, the teacher needs to get that student through three months' worth of material in one month. 

If the teacher could do that, wouldn't she be doing it already?

Do catch-up fans imagine teachers are sitting there thinking, "Well, I could teach this material a lot faster, but I think I'll just poke along instead." Do catch-up fans imagine that teachers aren't already moving as quickly as they can? 

Guys like Weisberg believe in "intervention programs designed to catch kids up," but if educators knew a swifter, more efficient way to teach that material, why would it be an "intervention program" and not a "regular program"?

But Weisberg never has shown much understanding of actual classroom teaching. He argues that schools are bad at catch-up because teachers are being asked to do the impossible-- but he has the wrong idea about what the impossible is.

In a classroom of 25 to 30 students, teachers must determine who is on grade level, who is behind (and why), how to modify instruction for each struggling child and how to extend learning for advanced students — all while delivering grade-level content.

Diagnostic exams, designed to give educators information on how students are progressing, are infrequent and often test different subject matter than what is used in the classroom. Intervention programs designed to catch kids up are purchased but poorly implemented. Students needing intensive help are sometimes segregated into programs with low expectations and weak outcomes.

Sigh. Not exactly untrue, but all beside the point. Weisberg assumes that a great intervention program and intensive help could somehow cause struggling learners to learn material faster than any other students in the system. He talks about a "roadmap to acceleration," but if we had such a roadmap, why wouldn't we have all students on it (and is it possible we already do). He also connects these problems, somehow, to grade inflation. 

Weisberg thinks he know how to do achieve the great catch up miracle. Let's see. First, this:

TNTP’s study identified 1,400 schools where students consistently learned more than a year’s worth of material annually, enabling those who started behind to reach grade level.

No, they did not. They identified some schools where students scored well on the standardized test of math and reading. When someone starts talking about "1.3 years of learning" they are talking about a certain amount of a standard deviation on a test score. Can intensive test prep bring test scores up? Probably. Do we have a shred of evidence that raising that test score will improve the student's life outcomes? We do not.

Weisberg continues with his bold vision:

In other words, the Catch-up Crisis is reversible. But first. we need a bold, shared goal: that students who fall behind grade level will catch up to — or exceed — grade-level standards within two school years, and without fail by high school graduation.

This is lake Woebegone talk-- we can get all students to be above average. You know what happens when all students are at or above grade level? We start talking about "grade level inflation" and how the standards are too low. 

But Weisberg sees three obstacles to implementing his bold vision: "limited real-time insight into student learning, little evidence-based guidance on how to address specific learning gaps and minimal job-embedded coaching."

Part of Weisberg's issue is a definite lack of faith in professional educators. "Students generate enormous amounts of work daily — assignments, quizzes, writing, projects," he says, as if human children are some sort of assembly line machine and the work they do descends from nowhere. "No human can analyze all of it for 25 students every day." He should meet secondary teachers who do it for 150-200 students. Is it hard? Sure. Do you find ways to manage it without doing it every single day? Maybe. 

But you know what he thinks the solution is-- magical AI that "can surface patterns quickly and provide teachers with usable, digestible insights." Which can also "generate evidence-informed strategies for specific challenges." Here's his example:

Imagine a fifth grader who is struggling with fractions. His teacher knows he earned a C- on the last test but doesn’t know why or what to do to help. AI can analyze the student’s work in real time and discovers he tends to invert numerators and denominators; it draws on data from thousands of similar children to see what worked best to help those with the same misconceptions and recommends content for a 15-minute tutoring block for the teacher to review and revise.

I'm stuck trying to imagine a fifth grade teacher who can't spot a student who tends to invert numerator and denominator (while doing what, exactly?) Where is this data from thousands of similar children? And how would AI know what worked best? And on what planet do you find a fifth grader who can be retaught successfully in a fifteen-minute block of time? 

Weisberg's working with a manufacturing model here. The assembly line is turning out a flawed product, so we examine all the data from the equipment and figure out how to correct the problem. But there are so many steps in this process that raise huge questions. How did the AI collect data from thousands of students-- did they agree to have every step of their classroom work monitored and recorded, and why is this data available all across the country? Also, given that AI does not actually think or understand in any human sense of the word, how was the instruction modified and shaped so that the AI could spot patterns in a useful way? 

Also, I love that AI-in-education folks always turn to math for examples (even though chatbots are notoriously bad at math). What if the student is having trouble analyzing figurative language in Shakespearean sonnets? What if the student is behind because they were supposed to read The Great Gatsby and they just, you know, didn't? 

Weisberg also wants to deploy AI to coach teachers. "AI-supported coaching tools, used responsibly, could provide timely, standards-aligned feedback on recorded lessons, supplementing human coaching rather than replacing it." Never mind "Teach like a pirate"-- now you can teach like a robot. This dovetails nicely with the suggestions for students, all of which add to the offloading of professional cognitive work for teachers. I wonder how long it would take the AI to deskill the actual human teacher.

Weisberg name-checks some companies doing some pilot work and claims some of these are seeing significant progress, but he only links to corporate sites-- not any "evidence-informed" support.

Weisberg nods to the ideas that teachers should still make final choices and also maybe the district better figure out how badly this adds to their too-much-screen-time problems. So he gets a half a point for that.

But mostly this is one more case of over-promising that AI can do something it can't actually do and maybe we shouldn't be trying to get it to do in the first place and, most of all, that can't really be done. He makes the mistake of imagining that teaching is engineering (read Russell Barkley on being a shepherd rather than an engineer), a view that is doubly problematic as it treats students like pieces of sheet metal waiting to be fashioned into a shape of management's choosing. Students get no agency or choice in his vision.

And all of that in service of the notion that if a runner is lagging in a race, they just need to be properly directed to run faster (faster even than those in the front of the pack) so that they can catch up. No, thank you.