Archives for the month of: September, 2020

Victoria Theisen Homer writes in Salon about the ways that remote learning distorts and devalues human relationships.

She writes:

Think of your favorite teacher. Whenever I ask people to do this, they usually tell me about a teacher who saw them: the one who took them aside and encouraged them to pursue art or computer science, who helped counsel them through a personal issue, who attended their Quinceañera — who, ultimately, just cared. By connecting with us in meaningful ways, these teachers not only earned a permanent place in our memories, they also engaged, challenged, and inspired us. Today, our nation’s 56.6 million elementary and secondary students could all use teachers like this, to help shepherd them through the pandemic and into a better future. But even in the best of times, school structures are more conducive to punitive discipline than meaningful teacher-student relationships, especially in our least-resourced schools. Today, with the challenges of virtual learning and the urgent messaging around “COVID slide” – the learning loss students may have suffered while they were out of school – relationships in schools are under further threat, just when students need them most.

Across the U.S., the pandemic has put a strain on families and children, many of whom continue to suffer from food insecurity, job loss, or the death of loved ones to COVID-19. So as kids begin school this year, they require connection, understanding, and nurturance from their teachers. While positive relationships with significant adult figures like teachers help children cope with trauma, such relationships also facilitate better learning. When students have meaningful relationships with their teachers, they are more likely to engage in class, more likely to feel like they can complete their school work, more likely to grow and achieve academically and personally. This is because learning is profoundly social.

But the pandemic has turned everything upside down.

Homer has prepared teachers. She studied some that entered affluent progressive schools where encouragement was the norm, and another group that taught in “no excuses” public school where conformity and obedience were customary.

The pandemic has extended “no-excuses” discipline into many schools that rely on remote learning.

She writes:

Schools across the country that primarily serve students of color and those from low-income backgrounds often adopt an approach to learning that centers on standardized test scores and control. For example, the other teacher education program in my study was situated in a “no excuses” charter school, the most prominent type of urban charter school (think KIPP or Success Academy), which aim to efficiently improve the academic achievement of children of color from low income backgrounds by eliminating anything they feel might distract students from learning (e.g. colorful socks, poor posture, indirect eye contact, talking in hallways).

At schools like this, educators maintain that there is no valid excuse for children’s failure to learn or behave. The teacher education program grounded in this context approached relationships like a formula: applying a series of discrete moves to accumulate “professional relationship capital” with students to increase their behavioral compliance and academic achievement. The director explained, “I think the foundation of the relationship is that my job is to try to generate maximum effort in thinking from you. That’s my job. It’s not to be your friend.”

Again, I followed graduates of this program into their first year of teaching at no excuses middle schools that primarily served students of color. These teachers also began the year by faithfully applying what they had learned about connecting with and disciplining students. They walked around their classrooms with timers in hand, smoothly assigned merits and demerits for behavior, integrated “little nuggets” they had recalled about students into brief interactions with them, and conducted “rebuilding conversations” after removing students from their class for infractions. It was all very efficient and controlled. Students were often silent, and hoped this approach would help them “succeed.” But they did not feel truly seen or understood as human beings by their teachers. One student explained, “I don’t think any of the teachers [know us].” And by the end of the year, one of these teachers admitted, “I think a lot of the kids sort of feel like it’s run like a jail…They’re very smart kids, and they understand that some of our rules are unnecessary, and overly strict, and un-empathetic.” The urgent insistence on academic achievement and behavioral conformity in these schools not only eroded opportunities for nurturing teacher-student relationships, it also conditioned students for subservience. This might be why some research indicates no excuses schools improve student test scores, but not life outcomes.

No excuses schools are not alone in this approach, though, and it now seems to be extending to virtual school. Desperate to counteract COVID-slide, educators are implementing plans to monitor and control student behavior during virtual class, including their attire, location, camera-use, attentiveness, and snacking. This is unfortunate but not surprising, because whenever the focus of schooling turns to quantifiable educational outcomes like standardized test scores or budgetary efficiencies, students are treated like products that must be regulated. Of course, humans are not products, and we all have very good excuses not to be performing as others may want us to right now, but the forces that govern schools don’t seem to get that. Because affluent and white students are more likely to attend schools with the resources to support meaningful relationships and less likely to be penalized for virtual or in-person violations, students of color will bear the brunt of this coming “discipline crisis,” which is really a crisis for relationships. For while relationships connect children to teachers and schools, harsh discipline severs ties.

Efforts to close the academic “gaps” that grew wider during COVID have facilitated the worst kinds of teaching.

One lesson learned since March is that remote learning is a very inferior way to conduct school. Students are bored, and teachers are frustrated. Distance learning may be necessary but it’s a poor substitute for in-person learning.

Gayle Greene writes in The American Prospect about the bonanza struck by EdTech due to the pandemic.

As she shows, EdTech has a shabby history in the classroom but now we are in a period that it’s needed, no matter how shabby it may be. She reviews recent EdTech disasters and notes that none of them have sunk the hope that EdTech is “innovative” and “cutting edge,” rather than a disaster that undercuts the vital human-to-human interaction that makes dc learning come to life.

She writes:

The transition to online teaching made everyone aware of the value of person-to-person communication. The human signals that tell a teacher how a class is reacting—the sighs, groans, snorts, giggles, eye rolls, glances, body language—are stripped away online. The teacher can’t even tell if she’s being heard. Warmth is difficult to express; rapport, trust, bonding almost impossible to build. “Kids can be hard to motivate under the best of circumstances,” says teacher blogger Steven Singer, “but try doing it through a screen.” Students say so, too: “I can’t get myself to care … I just feel really disconnected from everything.”

Ed tech companies lost no time moving in. “When the pandemic hit, right away we got a list of all these technology companies that make education software that were offering free access to their products for the duration of the coronavirus crisis,” said Gordon Lafer, political economist at the University of Oregon and a member of his local school board. “They pitch these offerings as stepping up to help out the country in a moment of crisis. But it’s also like coke dealers handing out free samples.” Marketing has become so aggressive that a school superintendent near Seattle tweeted a heartfelt appeal to vendors: “Please stop. Just stop … my superintendent colleagues and I … need to focus on our communities. Let us do our jobs.” Her plea hit a nerve, prompting a survey by the National Superintendents Roundtable that revealed “a deep vein of irritation and discontent” at the barrage of texts, emails, and phone calls, “a distraction and nuisance” when they’re trying to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. Comments on this survey ranged from “negative in the extreme” to “scathing,” and expressed concerns that these products “have not been validated” and that “free” offers conceal contracts for long-term pay.

For the past two decades, ed tech has been pushing into public schools, convincing districts to invest in tablets, software, online programs, assessment tools. Many superintendents have allowed these incursions, directing funding to technology that might have been better spent on human resources, teachers, counselors, nurses, librarians (up to $5.6 billion of school technology purchased sits unused, according to a 2019 analysis in EdWeek Market Brief). Now the pandemic has provided ed tech a “golden opportunity,” a “tailwind” (these are the terms we hear): Michael Moe, head of the venture capitalist group Global Silicon Valley, says: “We see the education industry today as the health care industry of 30 years ago.” Not a happy thought.

Read the whole article. You will be glad you did.

From Garrison Keillor’s “The Writers’ Almanac”:

The Blitz began on this date in 1940. “Blitz” comes from the German word “Blitzkrieg,” which means “lightning war.” Germany had successfully invaded France, and now Hitler was determined to conquer Britain as well. The German Luftwaffe, or air force, had been engaging the Royal Air Force for a few months, but without much success. Hitler changed his strategy: rather than focusing on military targets, he set out to crush the morale of the British people through relentless attacks on its major cities.

The first wave of bombers — 348 in all — hit London at around 4:00 in the afternoon. The Luftwaffe primarily targeted London’s docks on this first attack, but many bombs fell in civilian areas as well. Four hundred and thirty people died, and 1,600 were seriously injured. The fires that had started as a result of the first wave of attacks served as beacons for a second wave that hit after dark and lasted until 4:30 the next morning. But Hitler’s attempt to crush the British spirit had the opposite effect. Winston Churchill said: “[Hitler] has lighted a fire which will burn with a steady and consuming flame until the last vestiges of Nazi tyranny have been burnt out of Europe.”

Journalist Ernie Pyle reported from London during the Blitz. He wrote: “It was a night when London was ringed and stabbed with fire. […] The greatest of all the fires was directly in front of us. Flames seemed to whip hundreds of feet into the air. Pinkish-white smoke ballooned upward in a great cloud, and out of this cloud there gradually took shape — so faintly at first that we weren’t sure we saw correctly — the gigantic dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

“St. Paul’s was surrounded by fire, but it came through. It stood there in its enormous proportions — growing slowly clearer and clearer, the way objects take shape at dawn. It was like a picture of some miraculous figure that appears before peace-hungry soldiers on a battlefield.”

The attacks of September 7 were only the beginning. The Blitz continued for 76 consecutive nights, with the exception of a single night of bad weather. Bombs fell on London, Liverpool, Manchester, and several other cities in England and Wales. All told, some 43,000 British civilians died by the time Hitler called off the Blitz in May 1941, and more than a million homes were damaged or destroyed. The Blitz cost the Germans most of their air force, however: they lost most of their airmen and hundreds of planes.

Imagine having a leader like Churchill in a crisis, who could rally the American people to stand together for a common purpose.

Eleven years ago, an airline pilot named Captain Sully Sullenberger had to carry out an emergency landing with a flight filled with 155 passengers. He couldn’t make it to the airport, and he coolly landed his plane in the center of the Hudson River, smack dab in New York City. The craft was soon surrounded by small boats that ferried the stunned passengers to land. Not a life was lost. Captain Sully was an instant sensation, and a movie was made about his accomplishment.

Now Captain Sully is speaking out against Trump. He says what so many believe. Trump has neither courage nor character.

He tweeted:

“For the first time in American history, a president has repeatedly shown utter and vulgar contempt and disrespect for those who have served and died serving our country,” Sullenberger noted.

“While I am not surprised, I am disgusted by the current occupant of the Oval Office. He has repeatedly and consistently shown himself to be completely unfit for and to have no respect for the office he holds,” Sullenberger added.

“He cannot understand selflessness because he is selfish. He cannot conceive of courage because he is a coward.”

Bob Shepherd writes a segment for Rod Serling in “The Twilight Zone”:

INT. OVAL OFFICE – DAY
Trump sitting behind the Resolute Desk. Camera back to reveal Rod Serling standing D.R.

SERLING

His name, Mr. Little. A man with little education, little taste, little knowledge, little concern for other people. Neglected as a child, he grew into a black hole of neediness. And so he used Daddy’s money to build big, erected his name in Midas-gold letters across the landscape–his every action screaming, “I am worth something.” Everything became a zero-sum game. If someone else failed or was worse off, he was better, a “winner,” and so he cheated and harassed and ridiculed the unfortunate, the stranger, the down and out; appealed to the basest instincts of the basest among us; huffed and puffed and blew himself to gigantic proportions, at least in his own little brain. A twisted, malignant, metastasizing tumor of need and narcissism and knee-jerk nastiness, Mr. Little doesn’t know much, but the biggest thing he doesn’t know is that he just stepped over into a place where everything is bigger than he is, where everything is just beyond the grasp of his little mind and his little hands. He just stepped over into . . . The Twilight Zone.

Peter Greene has been following the career path of Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher who became the face of anti-unionism.

Friedrichs lent her name to a Supreme Court case that didn’t get decided (it was eventually superseded by the Janus case, whose attempt to defund the teachers’ unions won in the Supreme Court but has thus far not defunded the teachers’ unions.

I have often heard the rightwing cranks complain about evil teachers’ unions. I always ask them to name a high-performing state that has banished unions, and they are always speechless.

Greene offers a compilation of his articles about this dissident teacher.

He begins:

Friedrichs has been in the news yet again, this time appearing on Fox to accuse America’s Evil Teacher Unions of being sexual predators. It’s an accusation that will have traction in some circles; if you spend any time in conspiratorial comment sections of the interwebz, you’re probably aware of the grand conspiracy theory that says that the entire Democratic Party is a smokescreen for pedophiles trafficking in children.

If the Friedrichs name seems familiar, that’s because she first burst into the news as the chirpy face of a lawsuit to legitimize freeloading in teachers unions and not coincidentally try to gut the unions financially. That suit ran into an unexpected death on the Supreme Court and the issue was eventually decided by Janus, but while the lawsuit failed, it launched a whole new career for Friedrichs.

So that’s who that woman is. Rather than rehash previous pieces I’ve written about her, let me just provide you with the listings and you can decide on your own how much of this you can stomach.

Trump and Barr have warned about the dangers of a group called “Antifa.” I had never heard of them and don’t know anyone who belongs to this group. I did a small amount of digging and learned that Antifa means “anti-fascist.”

That confused me. How can it be wrong to be anti-fascism?

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists.

We fought a world war from 1941-1945 to save the world from fascism.

During World War II, there were pro-fascist people in America.

The current American fascists are the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and armed militias like those that stormed the Michigan State Capitol to protest public health measures to protect against the spread of the coronavirus. Fascists threaten their fellow citizens with military-type assault weapons. Fascists use extra-legal means to subvert the rule of law and to intimidate people of color and those who oppose them. Fascists want to make America a white a Christian nation where none is welcome who is either white nor Christian.

I oppose fascism. I support the efforts to suppress fascism.

I support the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe in democracy and the rule of law. I believe in equal justice under law for all. I believe in pursuing the goal of equality of educational opportunity. I know we are far from our ideals and values. I believe in pursuing them, not abandoning them.

I am a proud anti-fascist.

Are you?

People who work for a living count on the fact that when they retire, they will have Social Security. They pay taxes to fund the Social Security fund, and they deserve what they have paid for to protect them from living in poverty after they stop working. But Trump is threatening to eliminate the tax we all pay into the Social Security fund.

Trump recently issued an executive order deferring the payroll tax, which would temporarily boost workers’ pay checks. For the balance of this year, workers would see a fatter pay check. But every cent is deferred, and workers would have to repay that amount before April 15, 2021, meaning smaller pay checks after the election.

Trump said that if re-elected, he would abolish the payroll tax. If he did, the Social Security program would be bankrupt by 2023. Does he know that the payroll tax funds Social Security? Maybe not. If that secure funding were eliminated, Social Security would be at the mercy of politicians every year.

Historian Robert explains the opposition to Social Security. He wrote the following for the AARP about Social Security:


More than 80 years after its birth in the depths of the Great Depression, Social Security is deeply woven into the nation’s fabric. But Americans were initially skeptical of a program that seemed contrary to their faith in rugged individualism. “It is difficult now to understand fully the doubts and confusions in which we were planning this great new enterprise,” FDR’s Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins wrote later.

In a conversation with Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone, Perkins, whom Roosevelt had tasked with designing what then seemed like a radical departure from traditional ideas about the role of government in American life, confided her uncertainty about how to make this work within constitutional bounds. Stone in reply whispered, “The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”

In 1935, a time when British and German systems of support were easing the perils of old age, left and right in America saw reasons to contest Roosevelt’s reform. Liberals objected to withholding taxes from current wages to fund pension payments. Instead of expanding the economy through federal largess in a time of continuing depression, the plan reduced employees’ take-home pay by pouring millions of dollars into a fund that would not put money into circulation until workers retired. Moreover, it made no provisions for farm workers or domestics or workers in small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. And those who were already past age 65 were also left out of the mix.

Conservatives were even more vocal. Industry leaders objected to a major expansion of the federal government and forecast financial collapse and “the inevitable abandonment of private capitalism.” The head of General Motors predicted that it would destroy “initiative,” discourage “thrift” and stifle “individual responsibility.”

Republicans in the House foresaw the enslavement of workers: “The lash of the dictator will be felt,” one said. Another saw calamity ahead: “This bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.”

Roosevelt understood the opposition to the program, especially the objections from both ends of the political spectrum over taxes. But he believed that they were essential to preserve whatever was put in place. “We put those payroll contributions there,” he said, “so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

But “after all the howls and squawks,” Roosevelt pointed out, most Republicans, reluctant to oppose majority opinion, joined Democrats in both chambers in voting for the measure.

To the surprise of most outspoken critics, none of their worries materialized. When the law was signed by Roosevelt on Aug. 14, 1935, it joined his other social reforms, such as Federal Deposit Insurance to protect bank accounts, and reforms by subsequent presidents, such as Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Medicare bill, to save older Americans from financial ruin. The law was not set in concrete but rather was an expandable program that, by the mid-1950s, covered almost all employees and the self-employed as well. Nor were these changes strictly owned by Democratic administrations. During Richard Nixon’s presidency, Social Security benefits increased by 50 percent.

By the 21st century, Social Security had become universally popular and helped foster the view in the U.S. that federal social welfare programs are not a threat to free enterprise but a means of preserving it in a more humane industrial system. Proposals to privatize the program have repeatedly fallen by the wayside and it seems clear that, whatever the deficiencies of the system, no politician — as FDR predicted — is in a position to take it away.

Robert Dallek is the author of books on John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and of an upcoming biography of Franklin Roosevelt.

Got that? FDR predicted that “no damn politician” could ever scrap Social Security because it was funded by a payroll tax. Everyone paid for it. No one would dare take it away.

But FDR never imagined a politician as craven as Trump, who would falsely claim that cutting the payroll tax would put money in the hands of working people (and defund Social Security).

This dramatic story was just reported in the Los Angeles Times. Members of the California National Guard, firefighters, and law enforcement groups risked their lives to save others. Why would they do this? There was no money in it for them. There was service, duty, courage, valor. Call it heroic.

The call came in to the California National Guard at 3:15 p.m. Saturday.

A fast-moving brush fire had choked off the only road out of a popular recreation area in the Sierra National Forest. Hundreds of campers were trapped.

The Creek fire, which ignited Friday evening about six miles to the west, had jumped the San Joaquin River and made a run toward the Mammoth Pool Reservoir, where people were enjoying the Labor Day weekend.

“As fire crews and law enforcement were trying to get everybody out, the fire spotted and then basically grew,” said Alex Olow of the U.S. Fire Service. “Exiting out the road wasn’t safe, so people were asked to shelter in place.”

Authorities quickly determined the only way to evacuate them was with a massive airlift done at night as the fire burned unchecked.

That marked the start of a massive multiagency rescue that some officials described as unprecedented in size and scope.

“Our focus was getting the helicopters in and getting as many people out as quickly as possible to save lives,” said Col. Jesse Miller, deputy commander for joint task force domestic support with the California National Guard.

The Guard worked to assemble its teams and line up resources. But by the time it was in a position to send in aircraft, the fire had essentially reached the Mammoth Pool area, said Col. Dave Hall, commander of the 40th Combat Aviation Brigade, which flew the mission.

“The smoke column’s naturally high, very difficult,” Hall recalled. “And we needed some of that essentially to burn down a little bit in order for us to effect a safe rescue.”

At 6:30 p.m., when conditions improved slightly, the Guard launched a CH-47 Chinook and a UH-60 Blackhawk from about 60 kilometers away in Northern California. The helicopters staged in Fresno to receive guidance about where they could approach to pick people up.

A remotely piloted MQ-9 aircraft operated by the Guard’s 163rd Wing based at March Air Reserve Base worked above the site, helping to scout conditions. Personnel identified a small clearing alongside a boat launch road that could be used as an emergency landing zone.

About 8:20 p.m., the helicopters landed at Mammoth Pool.

The seven crew members were greeted by more than 200 campers, many of them clustered on a dock near the boat launch, Hall said. Some had suffered injuries including scrapes, burns and possible broken bones.

But they were ecstatic.

“I spoke with the crew members afterward and they said it was one of the greatest missions they’ve ever done just because of the feeling of relief the individuals who were rescued had,” Hall said. “They were literally giving the crew chiefs hugs as they were boarding the helicopter.”

Rescuers found that some campers had suffered serious burns from the fire as well as scrapes and broken bones.

Some of those at Mammoth Pool described a terrifying scene of driving through flames and finding shelter wherever they could.

Jeremy Remington told ABC30 that he and his family were boating when they went to fill their chest with ice. In less 30 minutes, he said, the fire was roaring toward them.

“The fire completely engulfed everything, all around us,” he said, adding they poured water on their shirts and used them to cover their faces as protection against the smoke and heat.

Two people had suffered life-threatening injuries. They were put in the helicopters first. Then came the 19 “walking wounded,” who needed hospital care but were not considered critical. Crews also prioritized children and those with underlying health conditions, officials said.

“Their focus was on rescuing them, getting them from the point of danger to point of safety and then getting them into the hands of the emergency medical professionals that were on the ground,” Miller said.

Crews dropped off the passengers at Fresno Yosemite International Airport, where a makeshift triage site was set up. There, paramedics assessed injuries and arranged for people to be taken to hospitals, while other emergency workers made sure those who were displaced were matched with shelters.

The helicopters then returned to Mammoth Pool to pick up another load.

By then, between the darkness and thick smoke, conditions had deteriorated again. Not knowing if they’d be able to make it back a third time, the crews loaded as many people into the helicopters as they could — more than 100 passengers in the Chinook and 21 in the Black Hawk, Hall said.

Luckily, they were able to make one more trip, and everyone who wanted to leave was airlifted. Two people chose to stay behind, Olow said.

When the mission was completed about 3 a.m., 214 people and 11 pets had been rescued, Hall said. At least 21 people were taken to hospitals.

“In my career with the Army National Guard, I have not seen an evacuation of this size nor have I heard of anything similar with regards to a fire incident,” Hall said. “So in my book, this is one of the largest events ever.”

But it might not be the last, he said. The fire was 0% contained late Sunday morning and had charred at least 45,500 acres, as evacuation orders continued to multiply.

“We do believe there will be more rescues,” Hall said. “We are posturing crews day and night to support potential rescues. What is unique about the terrain up there is it is a very, very popular camping site and also backpacking site. And because the fire travels very quickly, it is very possible for backpackers and hikers to potentially be stranded.”

Miller credited the work of scores of agencies, including the Madera and Fresno County sheriff’s offices and fire districts, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the California Office of Emergency Services and the California Highway Patrol, for the success of the daring rescue.

Today is the birthday of a great American, Jane Addams.

Garrison Keillor’s “The Writers’ Almanac” offers this tribute.

It’s the birthday of the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize: public health worker, community organizer, and social activist Jane Addams (books by this author), born to a wealthy Quaker family in Cedarville, Illinois in 1860.

She suffered from depression and went to Europe, thinking it would help. She visited a settlement house in London, a place that offered social services to the poor. She was deeply impressed by it, and after founding an experimental house like this in England, she returned to the states to establish one on the South Side of Chicago in the 19th Ward, a neighborhood full of poor immigrants from Russia, Greece, Italy, and Germany. It was in an abandoned mansion formerly owned by Charles Hull, and so she called it Hull House. It had a communal kitchen, a day care, a library, and a little bookbinding business.

Women boarded at Hull House, and it was also a neighborhood center, a performing arts center, and a space where book club meetings and classes were held. Two thousand people showed up each week from the area, and Hull House grew to add a dozen more buildings. Addams wrote about it in some of her books, including Twenty Years at Hull House (1910).

Addams was a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, fought for immigrants’ rights, and lobbied for labor reform. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931.

She’s the author of several books, including The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets (1909) and Peace and Bread in Time of War (1922).

There is one important fact about Addams that is not included: she was a pacifist and she opposed America’s entry into the Great War. Immensely popular, she risked her reputation by speaking out against the war.

She is a secular American Saint because of her courage, her compassion and her activism.