Friday, June 12, 2020

Never Mind The Personalized Learning. Let's Do Personalized Learning Instead.

As the education world scrambles to figure out what next fall will look like, many, many voices are speaking up for reimagined schooling. One particular model has surfaced repeatedly, and it’s not at all new—but it could be.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has set aside some of the stimulus fund for a competitive grant that would reward state-wide virtual schools, much like the model she admires in Florida. Many commentors are arguing that now is the perfect time to “innovate” and shift to personalized learning, or its twin sibling, competency-based education. One clue to what these folks are really talking about is the market research, which focuses on education tech companies. But Governor Andrew Cuomo gave a clear signal when he was announcing that Bill Gates would be helping reimagine New York schools:
The old model of everybody goes and sits in the classroom, and the teacher is in front of that classroom and teaches that class, and you do that all across the city, all across the state, all these buildings, all these physical classrooms — why, with all the technology you have.
What most advocates have been selling for years is not actually personalized at all, but is a system in which content delivery and assessment are handled by software. An algorithm, often touted as Artificial Intelligence, decides which assignments to deliver to the student. There may be a human “mentor” available to the students, but the computer manages most of the “educating.” The argument is that software is fast, deep, and flexible to “personalize” education, or that the software can move a student through a list of competencies and certify each one, checking off the list at the student’s personalized speed. 
The model has been tried by charter chains like Rocketship Academy, without a great deal of success. But it’s appealing at the moment because sitting each student down in front of a computer screen in separate locations is the ultimate in social distancing (and replacing expensive humans with software is appealing to some folks, too). Nevertheless, it’s hard to have personalized learning when you have removed persons from the education.
But what if we reclaimed the term “personalized education”? What if we decided that the key to personalized learning is not computers, but human beings? Could we meet the needs of students and the recommendations of the CDC? Let’s play the reimagining education game. What could actual personalized education look like?
To really personalize education, you need to provide more time and opportunity for teachers and individual students to interact. There are many ways we could do this, but let’s try this—split the school day in half and have teachers spend half the day teaching class, and half the day in conference with individual students. Reduce class size to a maximum of fifteen; that will allow teachers to get to know students better, sooner, and will also make it easier to do social distancing within the classroom. It retains class meetings, which provide the invaluable opportunity for learning to occur as part of a community of learners.
Students would have either morning or afternoon classes, reducing the number of students in the building at any time. Cafeteria services could be cut to a minimum while still providing meals to go for students who need them. Classes would be structured so that lots of the work is done outside of school. Teachers and students would maintain on-line contact and students could reach out for help at any time; keeping in contact virtually doesn’t work too badly if there’s a meat world relationship as the foundation. 
Each student would have personal contact with a teacher who has ample time to work with that student one-on-one. Teachers would have time to really learn the strengths and weaknesses, interests and goals, of every student. Teachers and families could develop individualized education programs (IEPs) for every student, not just the law mandates. There would even be time to design and implement courses of independent study, and leeway to focus on mastery and not just seat time. 
There are all sorts of challenges with this vision. Transportation in particular would be a problem for lots of working parents. Creative scheduling would be needed to give high school students a full schedule in half days. And teaching staff would have to be increased, even doubled, to make this work, as well as increasing the physical space for the school (though moving away from the institutional bricks and mortars would fit well with the personalized approach). That cost alone guarantees that nobody is actually going to try this.
Covid-19 or not, we’ve always known what’s required for truly personalized education. Instead, we’ve focused on how to keep costs low, how to make schooling “efficient.” Truly personalized education is costly. We should not be fooled by people who attempt to slap that label on a cheap alternative.
Originally posted at Forbes.com

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Five Examples Of What's Wrong With Ed Tech

I get pitches-- e-mails from PR folks who have noticed that I write about education and want to offer me a chance to talk to an up-and-coming visionary who can tell me all about Bunkadiddle Corporation's new program! The pitches have taken on a pandemic sheen for a few months now ("In these trying times, when students and teachers are all struggling, we offer this Shiny New Thing!"). Mostly they highlight everything there is to dislike and distrust in edu-business, but a couple of weeks back I got a super-entry in the category, a pitch that threw five "sources" at me, and they serve as a fine example of what's out there and why it's Not Good.

These companies are all "best in the space" (all of these pitches are for best top exemplary companies--always) and offer to help with the "two looming thoughts" for re-opening schools. How to keep people safe, and how edtech will be implemented. Which is the first bad sign, because I know lots of teachers are wrestling with concerns about students and health and classrooms and curriculum, but hardly anybody who is specifically worried about how to find edtech a happy place (the correct answer is, "I'll use any ed tech that actually does something I need to do better than I can just do it myself, and the rest can just take a hike.")

These five companies didn't ask to be raked over coals here, and it seems mean, even for me, to call them out by name after they handed me their info in an email. But here they are, offering to do their thing for pandemic times.

Our first CEO's LinkedIn profile leads with "A tireless visionary and the founder of multiple technology companies."

They're not kidding. Their profile lists him as founder for six companies, including gaming center management software, a communications platform, a business ecosystem, and a company that brings entrepreneurs to co-live in Bali. They've done a TED talk. They signed the Founders Pledge. They graduated from Copenhagen Business School in 2006, Harvard (Business Valuation, Mergers & Acquisitions) in 2007, and Northwester University Kellogg School of Management, specializing in business marketing, entrepreneurial ventures, venture capital, bargaining and negotiations, in 2008. After finishing at Northwestern, he spent a year at McKinsey and Company. Four of the six companies were founded after his McKinsey days.

Their most recent company creates virtual lab simulations and offers the promise "your students will learn twice as much with" their product. Twice as much as what is not explained, but they promise that it will close the knowledge gap. The email argues that "motivation and engagement issues with at-home learning can be solved by utilizing the right ed tech platforms," so hey-- problem solved. You can get up to eight simulations for $49 per student, or go "full course" with over 140 simulations for $99 per student. And they're global. The CEO/Founder, you may notice, has zero background in education; the company website offers no indication if anyone who works there has an education background.

Our next CEO/Founder/President graduated from the University of Phoenix with a MBA in 1996, founded the company in 2003 (though incorporation papers filed in Delaware in 1999), and has been riding that pony ever since, growing through acquisition. The CEO also did some work with distance learning companies, including his alma mater.

The company runs for-profit education services, specializing in the "data driven" personalized learning. They've had legal troubles in multiple states, including charges of illegal robo-calling sales prospects. It bought a couple of universities that it grew through online learning, except that they also became a prime exhibit of predatory for-profits that didn't actually produce useful degrees.

This company is in my email touting their newest subsidiary, an on-demand tutoring service with over 10,000 tutors available. Within management, there does not appear to be a single person with the slightest background in education--it's all business. In fact, there are several management committees--none are related to education.

Number three. MBA from Wharton in 2010. Prior to that they worked as a business analyst at Capital One, and spent two years at Bain and Company, along with some summer "associate" work. Degree in hand, he went to InMobi for signing publishing partnerships, then founded their company in 2013. They are "on a mission to make high-quality education accessible to everyone in the world." Also, "learn in-demand skills online--on your schedule." You get a mentor, too. The focus appears to be almost entirely on tech-related career prep. Networking is their big thing, and their pitch to me seems to be at least partly about people "looking to reskill due to the pandemic."

Our fourth CEO/Founder graduated top of the heap from University of Virginia with a degree in Foreign Affairs and Spanish. From there it was a United Nations commission, the Brazilian Embassy, the Organization of American States, and a Fulbright Scholar for a year at the US State Department. An account executive at Powell Tate, and a program advisor at UPEACE/US. All of that in the space of five years. Then a big job at Atlas Service Corps, an international exchange for non-profit leaders.

Somewhere in there in 2007, they founded a company that "cultivates students' social and emotional learning skills that empowers them to navigate the complex and rapidly-changing realities of our world." It uses interactive videos, movement and creative expression and the program was "developed with educators in alignment with CASEL." Since this CEO was a dancer, too, they may come the closest of any to having some piece of qualification for the work they're doing. But the company can also pitch baloney stats with the best of them; the email promises that they have "helped schools see a nearly 40% increase in students' ability to manage and resolve conflict by using their program." I can't imagine how one would design a study to actually measure that.

Their management team at least includes jobs like Senior Education Consultant, but one such consultant has a BS in finance, another "has been working in the education market" for years "in several aspects of education, including fundraising, publishing and technology," which are totally not aspects of education. The third such consultant has been working in edtech for the past 7+ years; only in the tech world are seven years enough to qualify you as a senior anything.

CEO number five has worked since 2006 in marketing., launching a self-titled consulting group in 2016. Then in 2018 they became CEO of "a language learning organization on a mission to empower students to learn new skills, and by so doing, expand their horizons and foster understanding and communication across cultures and communities." The business website seems far less student-oriented and more aimed at the adult and corporate market. You can join a group class for $399 or take private lessons at $32/hour, and there are corporate packages, too. This CEO is prepared to talk to me about the importance of personalized learning.

The five CEOs have two things in common--1) they are offering huge, sweeping, grandiose promises about education and 2) they have absolutely no background in education whatsoever. Well, three things--3) they smell an opportunity to grow some market while schools are shuttered.

The sadder thing is that, per my in-box, this is just one batch of cubes off the iceberg.



Wednesday, June 10, 2020

John Oilver and Defund the Police

I don't do this often, but all I'm doing in this post is asking you to watch this video from John Oliver looking at the police, how we got here, what we could do. And you must watch through to the very end.

Without The Big Standardized Test, Would Schools Be Flying Blind?

The future of the big standardized test is in doubt. This year’s pandemic pause made the annual rite of spring both logistically impossible and generally pointless as a means of data collection. With the year thoroughly disrupted, there was no chance that the tests would generate any sort of usable information, but their cancellation raises two more questions—wouldn’t testing next year be equally pointless, particularly when the time could be better spent helping students catch up, and wouldn’t a two-year hiatus be the perfect time to end the practice entirely?
As noted in the delightfully-titled “Statewide Standardized Assessments Were in Peril Even Before the Coronavirus. Now They’re Really in Trouble,” the testing regimen has been falling out of favor with a wide variety of folks. Two years ago I was writing about the eroding support for high stakes testing, and things have not improved since,
This could be the end, but the annual Big Standardized Test still has its supporters. Some argue that even more testing will be required when schools open, perhaps to determine if students move up a grade, while one advocate tweeted that scrapping the tests means “we’ll fly blind.” That echoes the argument for the high stakes tests that has been pushed since the early days of No Child Left Behind—if there’s no Big Standardized Test, then policymakers, administrators, researchers, parents, taxpayers and students will not know what is happening inside each school.
As this argument is revived, it’s worth reminding ourselves what the tests do—and do not—measure.
The testing regimen (PARCC, SBA, your state’s special flavor, etc) is a standardized test focused on math and reading skills. 
That’s it. 
Do you want to know how well students are doing in the study of science or history? In most states, the test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know the depth of student knowledge about a body of literature? The test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know how strong the school’s arts and music programs are? The test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know if your child is likely to grow up to enjoy “positive life outcomes”? The test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know if your child is maturing into a responsible and healthy young person? The test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know if the school is providing a safe environment? The test won’t tell you.
Do you want to know if your child has a solid knowledge of US civics and government? The test won’t tell you.
You get the idea. There is a long list of things that people have in mind when they ask “How is this school doing” that are not addressed by the test.
And what the test does address, it doesn’t address very well. School results can be predicted fairly effectively just by using demographic information, and individual student results take far too long to come back for them to be of any use to classroom teachers. 
The notion that parents, teachers and students will have no idea what’s going on in their school unless they can see scores from that one special test is absurd. When students return, teachers will do what they have always done. They will do their own formal and informal assessments of students for quick, on the spot information about where those students are. They won’t be flying blind, and they won’t miss the scores from the Big Standardized Test.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

PA: Charter Advocacy Chief Booted For Offensive Post

Ana Luiza Lannes Meyers is known to folks who follow the charter school debates in Pennsylvania as a vocal charter advocate as the executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public [sic] Charter Schools. But as of yesterday, she is out of a job, one more casualty of emotional blowback from the current Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

Working on her resume
Meyers has previously worked as "Director of Legislative Affairs" for LeadingAge PA (an advocacy group for aging services providers) as well as PA Field Director for Libertarian advocacy group, FreedomWorks. Before that she co-chaired the Kitchen Table Patriots, a Tea Party group in southeastern PA, and before that sales and marketing for the likes of Nickelodeon and American Airlines. Her degrees are in business. In short, she has virtually no background or expertise in education, but does have a long-standing experience in arguing that government services should be privatized. This is not new for PCPCS-- their previous chief's experience was as PR head for Westinghouse. Meyers held the job since March of 2017.

Meyers has been an active voice in opposition to Governor Wolf ever since he put charters on notice that there would be more regulation and less gravy train. Can't limit family choices, can't trap students in failing zip codes, etc, Meyers said. She tried hard to sell the idea that PA charters are non-profits (they are,  but the management companies that run some of them surely aren't). And she just helped the coalition launch 143K Rising, a PR push to resist attempts to cut charter budgets (something Wolf hasn't actually tried to do, but you have to keep your people scared). And shew wasn't very shy about it, calling Wolf  "an idiot on so many levels."

The world of charter supporters has long been an alliance between those who see charters as a tool for equity and social justice, and those who want to unleash free market forces in place of "government schools." Meyers' tea party past offers a hint about which group she comes from. But Saturday, May 31, she really put her foot in it.

Avi Wolfman-Arent caught the story and has been reporting it for PBS station WHYY. Saturday, Meyers posted a response to an emergency alert about "violent protestors" in Philadelphia. "None of this is okay," she said, noting that her husband is a retired state policeman, argued that all sectors have some bad apples "including the church." After offering support for the police, she closed with "These protestors disgust me. All lives matter."

When the station called to ask her about the post, it disappeared and an apology was posted. Meyers asserted her support for Black Lives Matters, explained she had not meant the protestors, but the looters. "I did not mean to insinuate that I don’t support Black Lives Matter,” she said. But it's pretty hard to read "All lives matter," any other way.

Criticism from the charter sector was swift. Sharif El-Mekki is a charter principal and heads up a group working on solving the problem of too few Black teachers in the classroom rejected her apology. At least one charter chain "condemned" her remarks. And as of yesterday, she was out of a job. Said the coalition board, "We have determined that new leadership is in the best interests of our member schools and the families they serve across the state." They thanked Meyers for her work, and buh-bye.

For more details from the story, you can catch Wolfman-Arent's reporting here.

Monday, June 8, 2020

No Teachers Teach Average Students

The average height of the staff here at the Curmudgucation Institute is about 4.5 feet (the Board of Directors really pulls the average down). Yet if you buy clothes that fit a 4.5 foot frame, those clothes will not fit anyone here.

The average guy named Peter Greene has made at least one major film. And yet, here I sit, with no IMDB entry or residual checks coming in for my work.

So here's one reason that a lot of educational research is that it is the findings are about average students. And nobody teaches an average student. Each student is a very specific individual with a specific complex of specific characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, history, etc.

So something like the widely-circulating NWEA "research" (aka "wild-ass guess") about the Covid-19 slide that everybody is kind of expecting to be a major feature of school in the fall. And really, three's no reason that the testing company can't make an edu-WAG; right now, WAG is pretty much all anyone has. But from a classroom teacher perspective, I have to ask what earthly good aa piece of research like that could be. From the classroom perspective, it boils down to, "Each of your students will be 'behind' some amount, more or less."

This is the problem with much of the "science" out there about learning--it describes what the average student does. But if I'm in a classroom, I don't want to know how the average student leans about widget decoding--I need to know how I can best get it across to Pat, who has a short attention span and not much interest in the printed word but likes to draw pictures all day, or Chris, who is pre-occupied most of the day with dinosaurs, and who doesn't read long multi-syllabic words easily, but who never forgets anything you read out loud.

One size does not fit all, but average size doesn't fit anybody.


Six Months From Now

I've whittled away at this post for days, which is unusual for me and usually means I'm making things worse, not better. And my first impulse in these days has been to stay quiet and listen, because a national conversation about racism doesn't really need one more white guy's voice. But 1) silence is not an option right now and 2) this all has implications for educators. But I warn you-- if I have a gift for making the complicated clear and simple, it will not be on display here.

I'm not telling you anything new to say that these are challenging times, though we have had times like these before, times when the ranker parts of our society have split open and spilled forth, times when the pain that people usually carry as a part of their daily routine suddenly erupts in roars, times when we have to confront (or in some cases, angrily defend) the stories we tell ourselves about who we are as a people.

In the moment, there is also the roiling clash between the complexity of reality and the reflexive grab for simple stories and explanations, all further complicated because it's during the noisy, difficult times that the worst of us slip out, under cover of chaos and noise, to spread more chaos and noise. Then there's the fear, and sometimes with the fear comes the stupid. There have been too many awful moments, some beautiful moments, some moments that weren't what they seemed.

What happens in the moment matters--how can it not, with so many words, so much action. But will it matter? Will there be a change, or will this moment fade. Is this rumble the kind of noise that comes when tectonic plates, long pressured, suddenly snap past each other to a new configuration, or is the noise of a rubber band, long stretched, snapping back to its original configuration?

Demonstrations and protests matter. They're a way to convey in real and effective ways just how strong and deep the feelings about an issue run. It's important that so many Americans are willing to stand up and be publicly associated with the message that Black Lives Matter. But that can't be the end of it, or all the walking and talking ultimately doesn't matter. The violence is a terrifying distraction from the main point, putting far too many people on all sides at risk; what agitators understand really well is that sparking more conflict puts both the crowd and the police at greater risk. You don't have to be that old to recognize the loop we seem poised to navigate yet again-- an injustice occurs, people rise up, noise is made, and then everyone goes back to the old normal. I'm interested in where we are, but I'm more interested in where we'll be six months from now. I see lots and lots of "We stand with Black Lives Matter," which is better than silence, but I still wonder what it will mean in six months. I mean, right now if I log on to Amazon, I see a big banner announcing that they stand with Black Lives Matter-- but what is the richest guy in the world actually doing about it?

White folks have work to do, especially white educators. And I would rather see us focus on doing the work than trying to look like we're doing the work. Education has to get its house in order. Rann Miller correctly points out that "Amy Coopers Are Everywhere," and that includes education. Horrifying examples abound. Little Miami University (in Ohio, not Florida) is going through a flap because a retired-now-part-time professor decided to shout some racist bullshit at demonstrators. This story gives you most of the pertinent data except for one item-- the professor is from the department of Teacher Education. Meanwhile, we've still got public schools commemorating Confederate figures and huge resistance to fixing that problem.

Cameron Barnett is a Pittsburgh middle school teacher who offers some concrete advice for white allies, including "the work of justice is never-ending, so stay tuned in for the long haul." Again, none of this is simple. One of the recurring theme I find among folks I know who are certain that there is no systemic inequity and that folks of all races exist on a level playing field, is the idea that at some point in the past Something Happened and that just erased all the historic effects. Maybe it was the end of the Civil War or the end of Jim Crow laws or a certain civil rights act, but they are sure that once that happened, everything became okee dokee and so all this BLM stuff is just baloney.

But US history on race (and a few other messy issues as well) is a tangled knot and there has never been and will never be a simple solution, and systems of racism and inequity have never gone away. There has never been and never will be a point at which folks can brush off their hands and say, "Well, that's all fixed" and just walk away.

That should feel familiar to folks in the education world, because education is also susceptible to magical thinking, to the belief that once we just wave the correct magic wand, everything will be okay. And we know that is bunk.

We should also recognize one of the problems of policing in many cities, and that's the attempt to use one tool--police work--to solve many problems that it's really not suited for. Can't fix the affordable housing problem? Have the police arrest the homeless. Dealing with the issues of poverty to hard and complicated? Just task the police with keeping a lid on all the growing frustration and anger. Basically, just make police responsible for dealing with the messes created by politicians' failures. I'm not a fan of the "defund" or "abolish" police movements, because the terms are unnecessarily provocative titles for a sensible movement about making the job of police smaller, or taking away all the responsibilities that shouldn't be theirs and which are not best handled by enforcement, anyway.

I have too many police in my life and family to view the institution as hopelessly irredeemable, but the system in some cities is stressed and stretched and damaged and damaging. And I believe that "defunding" would be immensely empowering for the best of our police and police departments. But there are lessons that teachers can learn from police and police unions in the current world.

The worst of police departments suffer from a bunker mentality. They have come to see their work as "us against them," with "them" being pretty much everyone else, from people on the street to politicians in City Hall. Because they have a whole raft of jobs that they can't possibly accomplish (fix poverty and homelessness by arresting people), they increasingly stressed, combative and, yes, racist.

Almost anyone who works in a school building recognizes the issue, plus one other that comes with it.

Extreme defensiveness. In the bunker, you never admit to any criticism from Them because you know in your gut that it will be used as a wedge to crack open your defenses and leave you vulnerable to all the other attacks that are about to be unleashed. That mindset is how you get the other 57 cops in the Buffalo super-duper cop squad quitting rather than admit, "Yeah, that shoving of a 75 year old man, no matter what his history of being annoying might have been, was over the top and shouldn't have happened." (Or maybe they were just cut loose by their union. Complicated.)

Teachers have been under relentless attack for at least two decades. It would be surprising if a bunker mentality hadn't developed. But that mentality does not serve teachers well, particularly not if they want to respond to the current crisis by doing the work. It's not a new problem--go look at every conversation in which someone says that we need more Black teachers in school and some white teachers get upset and start arguing that they are great teachers for their Black students. White fragility plus bunker mentality plus actual racism equals a school that has a hugely difficult time doing the work it needs to do. It takes leadership, both of the official and the personal type. And yes-- I know very well that the perception of being under attack for teachers is absolutely based in actual attacks (are you paranoid if they're really out to get you) which just makes being vulnerable enough to deal with our own shit and especially to say to some of our fiercest critics, "Yes, we screwed up on that one," all that harder. This work is complicated and twisty and involves balancing a whole lot of stuff. But if things are going to change, if things six months from now are not going to look just like six moths ago, then there is hard work to do.

When it comes to dealing with the students, the bunker mentality gives rise to Cartman Rules-- rules and confrontations that are all about "Respect my authority!" Which leads to an attempt to support authority with raw power, and that simply never ends well for anyone. The demonstrations have provided ample evidence of this, once again.

It's further complicated by vultures and bad actors all around. Another side lesson of these demonstrations and the pandemic pause has been that there are always people excited about the chance to set the world on fire and watch it burn, and there are always people ready to make a buck. The "defunding" movement is going to be embraced because for every responsibility removed from the police, there will be privatizing profiteers angling to get the contract. Teachers should keep an eye out, because we're already good at knowing this when we see it.

White folks have work to do, and white public school teachers, working in a system that by its nature reflects everything good and ill about society, have double the work to do. And not to make it seem to daunting, but it is work they will have to keep doing for the rest of their lives. That's a lifetime of explaining to colleagues why saying "All lives matter" is really missing the point, a lifetime of looking for ways to trying to promote justice and equity in systems that are not naturally inclined to welcome them.

This will not be easy. We have a national attention span problem. Even as everyone is caught up in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, everyone is also collectively deciding that the Covid-19 pandemic is over and just doesn't matter any more, not because of any actual evidence, but because we're mostly just tired of thinking about it and acting like it's a thing. People are looking at the current wave of demonstrations and declaring that This Time It's Different or that Everything Has Changed, but if there's one thing I know about this country, it's that there's nothing that's so traumatic and earthshaking that we can't collectively get over it in less than a year. Leaving, of course, a small section of the population to deal with it on their own while everyone else keeps asking, "Why don't you just get over it, already?" I suspect Black folks are pretty familiar with how that all goes.

I hope that a lot of folks in education are getting worked up, and I hope it's not in a "Let's find a march to go join in way" so much as a "Let's figure out how to work these issues of equity and justice into our curriculum for the coming years" or "Let's design and enact programs to better serve our students around these issues for the rest of ever" or even, "Let's start working on the state and local authorities to address inequities in funding and gerrymandering of school district boundaries." One Twitter commenter noted that white parents were bringing kids to marches even though those same parents would never let those children attend a predominantly Black, low-income neighborhood school. Educators should be addressing that. Educators should be addressing wealthy white neighborhoods that want to secede from the larger non-white non-wealthy district. Educators should be addressing racism among their colleagues. And White educators should be listening and reading (really--is there a better way to learn about anything?) and preparing to break the cycle. Just imagine how things might be different if White America had actually listened to Colin Kaepernick-- and not just listened, but done something.

From an interview with Ibram Kendi
:

Education, love and exemplary black people will not deliver America from racism, Kendi says. Racist ideas grow out of discriminatory policies, he argues, not the other way around. And if his new center can help identify and dismantle those policies in the U.S. and around the world, he believes we can start to eliminate racism. At least that’s the goal.

Teachers are in a unique position to identify-- and change-- discriminatory policies. Let that be part of the work, too.

Today, tomorrow, the rest of the week, there will be more noise, more marching, more rumors, more violence. Please God, let people stay safe, and most of all, six months from now, may this nation look different in ways that actually mean something.