Month / November 2023

by nflanagan

Dark Headspace—and Teaching

From a great column, by Darrell Ehrlick, on paying attention to the news, in the Michigan Advance:

 I understand the dark headspace a person can occupy after consuming a steady diet of news that seems to indicate a growing danger of authoritarianism; of a broken political system that continues to perpetuate dysfunction instead of listening to a public hungry for cooperation and solutions; of one global crisis after another; and of a global climate catastrophe so profound it threatens the very existence of the human species.

Yeah. That dark headspace.

For several years, since retiring, we have temporarily escaped harsh Michigan winters, spending the month of February in Airbnbs in Arizona. None of them had cable TV packages, so news-watching was limited to MSM, and sometimes, not even that. And eventually, we began to notice how agreeable it was to avoid what was happening in the Trump administration, dodge endless outrage over the January 6th insurrection, and reduce the non-stop anxiety of COVID spikes and variants.

No news, apparently, is good news.

Ehrlick’s point was—as you may have guessed—that it’s now incumbent upon all comfortable Americans to pull their heads out of their sulky discontent over restaurant wait times and gas prices and re-engage with civic responsibility. A republic, if you can keep it, and all that. The title of the piece is: Democracy is on fire. Consider this your wake-up call.

We’re seeing this wake up! language everywhere, lately, and not just in rabid, perennially anti-Trump commentary. As we round the corner into 2024, and the Election Where Nobody Wins gets closer, our obligation to choose wisely looms. Ehrlick is right—when the former leader of the free world is calling his enemies “vermin,” and pre-planning his political revenge tour, and the Speaker of the House can’t distinguish between facts and lies,  we’re in a bad headspace, indeed.

What was once considered hype, rhetorical overkill, playing the fascism card, etc. etc. is beginning to feel important and very credible. To political writers and news analysts, like Darrell Ehrlick—but also to invested citizens, like me. The old saw about being condemned to repeat a past one can’t remember is newly fresh and relevant—and omnipresent in the media.

And—surprise!—our older students are impacted by the same real and important political instability, as well. I think a whole lot of the ugly blah-blah promulgated by Moms for Liberty types is generated by parents’ wishes to keep their children from experiencing that dark and questioning headspace. There are plenty of “cultural chaos agents” ready and willing to help helicopter moms with that goal, then cash in after the election. It also helps to explain why the most zealous M4L acolytes are those with the most to lose by pursuit of diversity and equity. Keeping calm and carrying on while trying to solve problems that impact us all is not a way to preserve privilege.

All they have to do is convince anxious parents that the K-12 sky is falling. That their kids can’t read competitively by age eight, because their instructors are incompetent. That environmental science is promoting clean energy, undercutting the fossil fuel industry. That elementary school teachers are urging first graders to reconsider their gender, when the curriculum actually prescribes a foundation of respect and understanding for other people. That it might be a good idea to totally defund public education, and throw in public libraries and museums as well.

So many manufactured crises. So much to lose.

And although teachers are my favorite people on the planet, I have to admit that a lot of us are also inclined to—cliché alert—close our doors and teach, as policy and negative media opinion swirl around us. I get it. I am intimately familiar with the most pressing concern for teachers, especially novice teachers: What am I going to do tomorrow? And how will it prepare my students for their diverse futures while keeping their standardized test scores up?

Mostly, this is a matter of limited human time and energy. We are firefighters, dealing first with the urgent, and later with the important and long-term issues. Studying worst-case news and opinion—the dark headspace in education—can lead to a kind of paralysis for educators.

Things like choosing the perfect books to expand students’ minds and imaginations– see Mandy Manning’s photo illustration, a mélange of horror books, light and love–become minefields. If we’re not letting our students safely wrestle with the idea of a dark headspace through literature, history, drama and current events, how will they learn to cope?

Shortly after No Child Left Behind (the law to permanently fix all our public schools) was passed, I took a sabbatical—a perk in our local contract—to work for a national non-profit. While there, I spent a lot of time dissecting the new law, and its impact on highly qualified teachers, both the ones who were labeled highly qualified under the law, and the teachers who actually were exemplary, according to their school leaders, parents and students. I went to D.C. and spoke with folks in the Education Department, who were trying to figure out the laws’ outcomes, as well.

When I returned to the school where I taught, I was in a union meeting where the local Communications VP was cluing members in on the new legislation, which he called the ‘Adequate Progress’ law. But don’t worry, he said. Our contract prevents administrators from transferring us because we don’t have the right credentials. I raised my hand and gave my colleagues a quick summary of NCLB—the HQ teacher part, the adequate yearly progress part, the testing part, and more.

Our good contract won’t protect us from requirements of federal law, I explained. There was silence in the room. The idea of federal law mandating testing as early as 3rd grade, of tests determining a teacher’s value, of a district losing control over who is best positioned to teach a grade or subject, of national curricular standards—those were new and terrifying ideas.

Ideas, I might add, that teachers have pretty much absorbed in the intervening 20-odd years. Which ought to be a cautionary tale.

Living in a dark headspace is a call to action.

by nflanagan

Do Parents Really Want Control over What Students Learn?

Essentially, nothing has changed since this was first printed, June 2022:

What’s driving the screaming matches at local school board meetings—the ones where organized parent groups show up to have their say about everything from critical race theory to bulletproof doors?

There are a lot of overlapping factors: A nation that’s bitterly divided. The pandemic we’re still dealing with, and its impact on children. Racism, sexism and the fear of losing “rights.” Gun violence. The political upheaval resulting in an insurrection, which played out live, on national TV.

And, of course, money and support from outside sources and organizations, which perceive these ongoing crises as an opportunity to chip away at public education.

I’m no stranger to parent-led fireworks at Board meetings. I’ve witnessed verbal storms over sex education and teacher strikes and girls who wanted to lift weights with the wrestling team.

During my second year of teaching, in October, the School Board decided to lay off 20 teachers (including me) who signed annual contracts in the spring, because an August millage election had failed. They made cuts to programs across the board, and established a pay-to-play model for all HS sports. There was a huge board meeting that went on until the wee hours. And what were the parents upset about? Eliminating foreign languages—or elementary art and music?

No. It was about the football team.

One mom was outraged at being asked to fund her son’s final year on the team. “This is his time to shine! Teachers can always find another job—but my son has only one chance to play football in his senior year!” There were perhaps a hundred teachers at this meeting. You can imagine how that remark went down with them.

My point is this: when parents are angry enough to publicly spout off at a school board meeting, it’s seldom centered around informed disapproval of established curriculum, instruction or even assessments (unless someone has lied to them about what’s going on in their children’s classrooms). Even book banning—a chronic hotspot for school leaders—seldom flares up because a parent carefully read their child’s assigned book and was shocked into action.

What we’re seeing now is something else: an orchestrated and funded effort to demean public education and the people who work in public schools. It’s about power and control. It’s about ginning up fear, using dishonesty as a tool. As John Merrow notes:

Many of the adults who have been disrupting local school board meetings not only do not have children enrolled in those schools; they are classic outside agitators, perhaps even from neighboring states. 

The foundation of recent wrangling over control—parents’ rights, if you will—is thoroughly political and got a big boost when now-Governor Glenn Youngkin promised to strip culturally responsive instruction from schools in VA.

Parents have always had rights—including the right to see what their children are learning, access to instructional materials, the option of observing their child in his classroom, and the opportunity to talk to his teachers about any of these.

Teachers have the responsibility to know the curriculum well, to be able to tell parents why certain materials and teaching strategies were selected.  And—should parents be genuinely concerned about any of these things—the responsibility to justify the value of a particular technique or content, to adapt or offer alternatives.

That, in a nutshell, is good teaching–based on trusting relationships and understanding. Every veteran teacher and school leader reading this has had difficult conversations with parents about what and how their children are learning. It’s part of the job. Always has been.

It’s also one of the reasons many teachers pushed back against the Common Core: the standards didn’t fit the students they were teaching. Driving responsibility for determining standards, curriculum and assessment upwards means that teachers are left with explanation that they’re teaching something because it’s on the state test, even though it may be inappropriate or irrelevant for a particular child.

It’s not just parents who want to strip control from schools. From Education Week:

States have a limited amount of power over what materials teachers use in the classroom. A new report shows how some of them are trying—and succeeding—to wield influence anyway. In the majority of the country, districts operate under local control, meaning that school systems, or sometimes individual schools or teachers, have the ultimate authority in deciding what curriculum is taught.

That means that if states want to influence what teachers are using, they have to get creative about what levers to pull. A new report from the RAND Corporation suggests that some states have managed to do just that.

Look for the phrase ‘High-Quality Instructional Materials’ accompanied by some disdainful blah-blah about how clueless teachers design lessons based on what they see on Pinterest, so professional curriculum deciders need to step in and choose better materials. Well-paid deciders, naturally.

Earlier this year, Jennifer Berkshire found reason for hope:

I’ve spent the last few days talking to voters and candidates in New Hampshire who powered record turnout, resounding wins for public school advocates. One theme keeps coming up. Voters were REPELLED by the extremism of “parents’ rights” groups. This was a backlash to the backlash.

In the meantime, all the shoutin’ has left educators limp and discouraged. From Connecticut teacher Barth Keck:

Nationwide accusations of schools teaching “critical race theory” found their way into Connecticut despite any evidence of its existence or even any accurate explanation of what CRT really means from the critics. Superintendent Freeman “cited letters to the editor and social media posts regarding the school’s teaching and equity policies which imply that ‘parents shouldn’t be trusting the teachers and school administrators who are shaping the experience for their children in Guilford.’” 

I have not felt such pressure personally, aside from comments on social media from those calling me a “groomer” and “brainwasher” of children. Granted, I don’t know these people personally, and the only thing they know about me is that I’m a teacher. But that’s the point: Strategic political posturing has convinced scores of people that, rather than a noble and essential profession, teaching is an insidious endeavor whose primary purpose is to push a far-left agenda.

It’s not about the things parents already have a say in—their children’s learning.

It’s about raising a public ruckus.

by nflanagan

Teaching Music in the Digital Age

Story from my band room, a couple of decades ago:

I am discussing auto-tune, a relatively new invention, with one of my students, an uber-smart trombone player. I have serious doubts about whether auto-tune is a good thing for recorded music, as a concept. It means, I tell him, that the focus on all kinds of music will shift from genuine musical talent to production values. Singers who have limited range and vocal appeal, but look hot, can be made to sound hot, too, even when a raw recording of their voice reveals pitch problems and dubious vocal quality.

But, he says—aren’t you always pushing us toward perfection, in band rehearsal? We use machines to improve our tuning. We use machines to regulate tempos. And our entire goal is to sound flawless—the pursuit of excellence and so on. (That’s actually a thing I say, pretty often, in rehearsal.) Why wouldn’t it be OK for record producers to use technology to achieve the same ends?

I told you he was smart.

There are other reasons to make music, I reply. What about the joy of playing with others, like our community of kids here, who find great satisfaction in playing Russian Christmas Music, even spending lots of time tuning the unison brass opening, because nobody can fail to be moved by the solemnity and glory of the music? Even the beginners who can only play six notes experience immense pleasure in playing that first concert, despite being out of tune and rhythmically inaccurate. And their parents love it, too.

He wrinkles his nose. Maybe they’re just pretending to like it, he says.

My career as a music teacher was varied. I taught secondary band and choir, and elementary music. I taught some other stuff, too—seventh grade math, and a dumping ground class that gave me kids who didn’t speak English well enough to know how to do their homework—but I taught music across the K-12 spectrum, vocal and instrumental, in five different decades.

Although the world of recorded music, available to everyone on the planet, pretty much, changed radically in that span from the 1970s to the 2020s, music education looked much the same: elementary schoolchildren singing and moving to the beat, and selected secondary students peeling off into performance ensembles—bands, orchestras and choral groups. Competition remains popular with secondary teachers. The tyrannical band director is still a thing—and often admired.

Now, and perennially since the rise of musical performing groups in schools early in the last century, music programs are often considered expendable, subject to funding vagaries. There are lots of school band programs that depend on fund-raising and Boosters organizations. I myself was a poster child for funding your own program. Which means that parents and teachers believe so strongly in the power of school music programs they’re not willing to let them go.

There’s even talk about the ability of music and other arts to bring divergent perspectives together. There’s research about how music develops executive function, the “CEO” of the brain.  Music builds communities—in schools, and after formal education is over.

So why would any school think that music is an add-on, nice but not central to their mission of (here it comes) creating 21st century citizens? The New York Times takes a stab at this with an article entitled We’re Teaching Music to Kids All Wrong.

Not a promising headline but the author, Sammy Miller, a Grammy-nominated drummer who started a music education company, actually gets this mostly right:

We need to start by rethinking how we teach music from the ground up, both at home and in the classroom. The onus is on parents and educators to raise the next generation of lifelong musicians — not just for music’s sake but to build richer, more vibrant inner personal lives for our children and a more beautiful and expressive world.

Miller notes that about 80% of all kids quit singing and playing in formal ensembles before they graduate. He points to the way we currently teach music—as a fully definable skill with pre-organized, grade-able steps to learning—as the reason for that:

A class that by definition is meant to be a creative endeavor winds up emphasizing rigid reading and rote memorization, in service of a single performance. We need to abandon that approach and bring play back into the classroom by instructing students how to hear a melody on the radio and learn to play it back by ear. Start with just one chord, a funky beat and let it rip — and, voilà, you’re making music.

I fully agree with Miller here—many music programs give up on creativity somewhere around the 5th grade–but I can see large ensemble teachers across the country wincing. Those of us who are teaching music are dependent on uniformity because when there are 50 students holding noisemakers in front of you, the last thing you want is experimentation, especially with a funky beat.

Besides, we’re always under the gun to develop programs that the “community can be proud of” and showcase continuous skill-building in our students. In doing so, we stick to the tried-and-true instruments, techniques and literature. The world of popular and commercial music, in which our students are marinating every day, is ignored, unless the band plays a Top Ten tune in a football show. And the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of performance is the core value. 

But Miller says:

We need to let kids be terrible. In fact, we should encourage it. They’ll be plenty terrible on their own — at first. But too often kids associate music in school with a difficult undertaking they can’t hope to master, which leads them to give up. Music does not have to be, and in fact, shouldn’t be, about the pursuit of perfection. Great musicians have plenty of lessons to teach students about the usefulness of failure.

Like every curricular/instructional issue in K-12 education in 2023, talk of failure, learning from our mistakes, is somewhere between frightening and verboten. All of us are judged, stacked up against auto-tuned perfection, when perfection can be achieved digitally if you have the money and the tools.

Motivating children and teenagers is something else entirely.

by nflanagan

Veterans Day, 2023

On Veterans Day, I usually put up a Facebook photo of my Dad while he was serving in the Army Air Corps, WW II. I have a handful of them–in front of planes, in his radio gunner seat on the plane, in his flight suit and helmet, and so on. In each of them, he looks young and handsome, and determined– a man I didn’t know, just starting what would become his imperfect adult life.

My dad enlisted in the Army shortly after Pearl Harbor, early in 1942. He was 20 years old, and had been knocking around in Muskegon after dropping out of high school at 16. He did the usual entrance screening and tests, and was pulled out of the pack and offered a chance to be part of the Air Corps, which would involve special training to fly combat missions. The Air Corps was transitioning at the time, to what would become the Air Force, and my dad was thrilled to be going off into the wild blue yonder. In this case, the Pacific theater.

His leaving school at 16 to go to work wasn’t a function of academic failure, by the way. My father was one of the smartest people I know, a quick and canny intellect. He was also belligerent and impulsive and emphatically did not like being told what to do. He told me many times that the only teacher he respected and the only class he loved was his band director and playing in the Muskegon HS Band. He quit school because, other than music, he wasn’t learning anything. (Yes, I see the irony.)

His four years in the military were tumultuous. His plane was shot down and floated for days in the Sea of Japan, eventually rescued by an Australian submarine. All crew members survived. His brother Don (pictured, below) was killed in the first wave of Marines on Iwo Jima, in February, 1945, at the age of 19, after which my dad went AWOL, hitching rides to Iwo Jima to ‘see for himself.’ Returning to his unit, he was busted down to Private, although he was honorably discharged as a PFC.

The picture of my dad, with his younger brother, Burt, was taken on my grandparents’ back stoop after he returned home: the admiring younger brother and the Man Who Has Seen Too Much. The photo says it all.

Today, on Veterans Day, I want to honor all the men and women who came home, bringing all the trauma of war with them. The folks who tried to forget, but couldn’t. The ones whose wives warned their children: Don’t ask Dad about the war.

Our country was built on sacrifice. It would serve us all well to remember that, every day.

by nflanagan

A Few Thoughts about Teacher Evaluations without Testing Data

There’s a bill on MI Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s desk that would—among other good, constructive things—end the mandated practice of evaluating teachers using their students’ test data. Most recently, 40% of a MI public school educator’s annual evaluation was tied to standardized test scores. Getting rid of that (and the myriad ways that it was subverted, in practice) is definitely a policy upgrade. Hallelujah.

The next question is always: What will replace test data-based teacher evaluations? And that’s a vastly more interesting topic—how and why should teachers be evaluated? You need both the how and the why to think out of the checklist-of-skills box here.

Yes, teachers’ work must be monitored and assessed, to meet a minimal level of competence, as a critical, publicly funded service. But—are there ways to enhance teachers’ effectiveness embedded in an evaluation process? Is it possible to improve teachers’ practice in the process of checking on them? That’s the gold standard. But is it reality?

From a pretty good piece on the proposed changes in teacher evaluation in Michigan:

Districts would be able to use their own criteria for evaluating teachers, such as classroom observations, samples of student work, rubrics, and lesson plans.  Critics in the legislature (and let’s identify them by name: Republicans) say this plan is merely a return to what used to be—the good ol’ days when teachers got away with substandard practice because there were no teeth in district evaluation processes. But there is something to be said about evaluation criteria tailored to a teachers’ context and teaching assignment. After a couple of years, most teachers could, for example, write their own goals—and a first grade teacher’s goals around student literacy might be very different from the HS art teacher’s portfolio of student work samples.

The bills would de-emphasize evaluations as a factor in districts’ decisions to fire or demote teachers or deny them tenure. Districts seem to have little difficulty firing or shaming teachers these days, for all kinds of stupid, politicized reasons. For teachers lucky enough to have tenure, it’s not the guarantee of a job for life, as the right wing might have you believe. If a district wants and needs to fire a teacher, it’s possible to do that without testing data—in fact, taking away the test score excuse puts the onus on a district to do the work of gathering evidence of a teacher’s unsuitability.

The bills would require districts to take action against teachers who don’t improve after repeated interventions.  As districts should, even in a time when qualified teachers are not thick on the ground.

Michigan’s law on test scores and evaluations grew out of a push for greater accountability in education that began in the 2000s. Some advocacy groups theorized that more rigorous reviews would generate detailed feedback that could be used to improve teachers’ performance. The language here is interesting—“some advocacy groups” and “detailed feedback.” Not much happens when an education advocacy group has a good idea (like using a non-threatening evaluation and mentoring process to build teacher capacity). The groups that get traction for their ideas do so through legislation. And only legislators bent on proving that lack of accountability is the problem would believe that standardized testing data represents detailed feedback on how well a teacher is doing in the actual classroom.

Critics are concerned that de-emphasizing student test scores could lower standards for teachers while students are still struggling to recover from pandemic learning loss and need high-quality instruction. This concept—“lowering standards for teachers”—is comical in a time when districts are thrilled to be re-hiring retirees, rather than relying on uncertified long-term subs. And shame on any media outlet for buying into the idea that students are suffering from learning loss (as measured by the same testing data that doesn’t identify outstanding teaching). Of course, students need high-quality instruction. They have always needed high-quality instruction. Let’s figure out a way to give them more of it.  

Proponents of returning to the old evaluation method say there is no evidence to suggest the current system benefits students, and that tying ratings to test scores contributes to burnout amid persistent teacher shortages. Bingo. Although it’s optimistic, one can hope that districts will take the opportunity to modify their ‘old’ evaluation systems, since tying ratings to test scores didn’t get our hard-working teachers to miraculously raise either. Ten years of data analysis, no uptick in scores.

Let’s go back to the gold standard: an evaluation process that would improve teacher practice. It’s a huge—and evergreen—issue in building teacher capacity, and there is no shortage of, umm, advocacy groups that would like to take on that challenge (and then sell their thinking, materials and workshops to districts).

I’ve always been a fan of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ assessment, but it’s complex, time-consuming and expensive, and needs to be renewed every five years. Moreover, it was created for experienced teachers—an opportunity to stretch and grow and be recognized for your exemplary practice. It’s not designed for novice teachers, and it’s especially not useful for teachers who are struggling.

It’s worth noting that tracking student test data to teacher performance is not only useless, but expensive. Freeing up districts to create their own, multi-phase, divergent forms of evaluation could be a cost savings (but a lot of different work). While buying an off-the-shelf evaluation system is the easiest option, a high-functioning district, with adequate staffing, might be able to do some good work, building a system that runs from an intentional induction phase, to using skilled veterans to partner with newer teachers.

When I think about teacher evaluation, I remember Deming’s first principle: First, drive out all fear. If changing the law does nothing more than that, it will be a success.

The bill dumping test scores as a mandated factor in teacher evaluation is part of a wave of edu-changes including making charter school teacher salaries public, eliminating third grade retention for students testing below grade level in reading, ending the practice of giving schools letter grades and giving underwater districts debt relief.

All of these will matter in the fight to improve and strengthen public education. Just as much as teacher evaluation.

by nflanagan

A Passionate Education Conference

Thirty-five(ish) years in public education—you’d think I would have attended dozens of professional conferences, coming home with a branded tote bag and a ream of stapled, shovel-ready ideas for my classroom. That’s the way principals in my experience used to frame attendance at a conference: If we choose to give you a $300 stipend to attend a conference, you’d better bring back materials and lessons for your colleagues. Because that’s why we have conferences: to give teachers new tips and tricks.

Teachers know this, but education-related conferences are almost always done on the cheap. Teachers–even teachers who are conference presenters–often pay part or all of their own expenses, get a rollaway bed so three of them can share a hotel room, split up and attend different sessions to absorb the maximum number of ideas, then maybe pop for a margarita before calling home at bedtime. The high life.

In my 30+ years as a school music teacher, my request to get a day off to attend a conference was turned down repeatedly. The reason was usually because I was the only music teacher in the building, so anything I learned would not be shared beyond the band room. There was very limited money in the budget for conferences (or, for that matter, professional memberships or subscriptions) so STEM or Reading Recovery events were prioritized, as being more likely to impact kids scores.

Administrators also go to conferences, leaving their favorite teacher in charge; presumably they’re expected to bring back “results,” as well. Still—going to a conference, even if you are paying your own mileage, lodging, meals and registration fee, is a perk for teachers.

And not for the new materials or lesson plans.

The value of conferences for educators—as with any gathering of professionals—is in structured opportunities to mingle, to learn, to have long, uninterrupted conversations, to build networks of colleagues with similar values. The purpose of any conference is (or should be) inspiration. The big picture. Hanging with a bunch of people who care as much as you do.

In the age of the internet—where most of us can examine materials and swap lesson plans fluidly—the absolute advantage of a face-to-face conference is the talking and listening, in person. Three decades of communicating on-line (and one godawful pandemic), plus all the tech-bro videos and social platforms—and what have we learned? That you miss something when the person you’re talking with isn’t in the room.

I thought about all of these things while attending the Network for Public Education’s 10th anniversary conference in Washington D.C. last weekend. It was a gorgeous fall weekend—the kind of walking weather where a stroll down to the White House might feel preferable to sitting in sessions centered on countering rabid school board races or hostile state takeovers of ‘failing’ schools.

But no. Every one of the six sessions and five keynotes I attended was both stimulating and encouraging. I heard the inimitable Gloria Ladson-Billings speak, and was stunned by what is happening in Florida and Arizona. I got some tips on running for school board in my local district (#2024Goals) and heard stories of redemption, as well as hideous state-based power plays. What reformers used to call ‘disruption’ now feels like intentional destruction, driven by a single, grasping political party. All over the country.

In the 10 years NPE has been meeting, the tenor of this annual conversation has shifted from the corrosive impact of excessive testing and charter school scandals—So. Many. Scandals.— to outright, in-plain-sight privatization of our best national idea: a free, high-quality public education for every child.

The absolute folly of vouchers—check out Josh Cowen’s work—and the political willingness to blur the lines between church and state are terrifying, all right. So why was I feeling encouraged?

For starters, the fact that the NPE is still meeting, 10 years after its founding, funded largely by individual donations and relatively modest foundational contributions, is reassuring. Many of the conference attendees were still paying their own way—or were attending on the dime of another organization created to defend public education. Money is still how things get done, laws get passed, and ideas take root. Knowing that there are articulate and passionate spokespersonsorganizing to protect public education is heartening.

The second thing I noticed was the number of sessions led by women and people of color. The foot soldiers in the war on public education are teachers, nearly 80% of whom are women. I have been to too many education conferences and symposia where the talking heads were white men with terminal degrees (who were not paying for their own registration fees and babysitters).

Don’t misunderstand—some of my most impressive edu-friends are smart and outspoken white men. But education has long been seen as women’s work, and when I look at the dangers looming—vouchers, religious charter schools, well-funded campaigns against “CRT” and sexual and reproductive autonomy—I see white men, clinging to money and power.  If we’re going to stabilize and enhance public education, women need to be at the forefront. One of the most impressive keynotes at the conference: Diane Ravitch moderating a discussion with the two of the most influential labor leaders in the nation—Randi Weingarten of the AFT and Becky Pringle of the NEA (who preached a blistering sermon on those who would deny the value of a public education for all our children).

We built some sight-seeing (and crab-cake eating) into the D.C. journey, including a visit to the Holocaust Museum before heading to the airport. I last visited the Museum shortly after it opened, but its power has not faded. What I found interesting, in 2023, was the three-deep crowds at the display around the Nazi rise to power in the 1930s in Germany.

Twenty-five years ago, that display addressed the eternal question of how so many good German citizens were drawn into a horrendous scheme to conquer their national neighbors and eliminate “undesirables.” It seemed like a temporary madness, driven by economic instability and inherent German nationalism, not to mention a charismatic leader who appealed to a third of the population.

Now, the photos, speeches and commentary feel like a warning.

Public education is not the only thing endangered. It will take hard work and passion to keep the idea of public goods alive and thriving.

{“cameraType”:”Dual”,”macroEnabled”:false,”qualityMode”:2,”deviceTilt”:0.0073067386958260983,”customExposureMode”:0,”extendedExposure”:false,”whiteBalanceProgram”:0,”cameraPosition”:1,”focusMode”:0}