Archives for category: Education Reform

This Report was written by Kris Nordstrom, who works for the North Carolina Justice Center. He previously was a research analyst for the North Carolina General Assembly. The report tells the story of a state that was once the envy of the South for its education policies, but is now in rapid decline, copying failed policies from other states,

Home

PRESS RELEASE and SUMMARY

By Kris Nordstrom
Contracting Analyst, Education & Law Project

North Carolina was once viewed as the shining light for progressive education policy in the South. State leaders—often with the support of the business community—were able to develop bipartisan support for public schools, and implement popular, effective programs. North Carolina was among the first states to explicitly monitor the performance of student subgroups in an effort to address racial achievement gaps. The state made great strides to professionalizing the teaching force, bringing the state’s average teacher salary nearly up to the national average even as the state was forced to hire many novice teachers to keep pace with enrollment increases. In addition, North Carolina focused on developing and retaining its teaching force by investing in teacher scholarship programs and mentoring programs for beginning teachers.

North Carolina innovated at all ends of the education spectrum. The state was one of the first in the nation to create a statewide pre-kindergarten program with rigorous quality standards. At the secondary level, North Carolina was at the forefront of dual credit programs for high school students, and the Learn & Earn model (now known as Cooperative Innovative High Schools) became a national model, allowing students to graduate with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree in five years. Students graduating from North Carolina public schools could enroll in the state’s admired, low-cost community college system or its strong university system, most notably UNC Chapel Hill. For much of the 1990s through early 2000s, policymakers in other states often looked to North Carolina’s public schools as an example of sound, thoughtful policy aiming to broadly uplift student performance.

Unfortunately, over the past seven years, North Carolina has lost its reputation for educational excellence. Since the Republican takeover of the General Assembly following the 2010 election, the state has become more infamous for bitter partisanship and divisiveness, as reflected in education policies. Lawmakers have passed a number of controversial, partisan measures, rapidly expanding school choice, cutting school resources, and eliminating job protections for teachers.

Less discussed, however, has been degradation in the quality of North Carolina’s education policies. General Assembly leadership has focused on replicating a number of education initiatives from other states, most lacking any research-based evidence of delivering successful results to students. The General Assembly has compounded the problems though by consistently delivering exceptionally poorly-crafted versions of these initiatives.

Sadly, these controversial, poorly-executed efforts have failed to deliver positive results for North Carolina’s students. Performance in our schools has suffered, particularly for the state’s low-income and minority children.

So how did we get here? How is it affecting our students?

Lack of transparency leads to poor legislation

The past seven years of education policy have been dominated by a series of not just bad policies, but bad policies that are incredibly poorly crafted. This report provides a review of the major education initiatives of this seven-year period. In every case, the major initiatives are both:

Based on very questionable evidence; and
Crafted haphazardly, ignoring best practices or lessons learned from other states.
These problems almost certainly stem from the General Assembly’s approach to policymaking. Over the past seven years, almost all major education initiatives were moved through the legislature in a way to avoid debate and outside input. At the same time, the General Assembly has abandoned its oversight responsibilities and avoided public input from education stakeholders. The net result has been stagnant student performance, and increased achievement gaps for minority and low-income students.

One commonality of nearly all of the initiatives highlighted in this report is that they were folded into omnibus budget bills, rather than moved through a deliberative committee process. Including major initiatives in the budget, rather than as stand-alone bills, is problematic for three reasons:

Stand-alone bills are required to be debated in at least one committee prior to being heard on the floor. Committee hearings allow public debate and bill modifications from General Assembly members with subject-area knowledge, and can permit public input from stakeholders and other outside experts.
Stand-alone bills require majority of support to become law. While the budget bill also requires majority support to become law, there is great pressure on members to vote for a budget bill, particularly one crafted by their own party. Budget bills are filled with hundreds of policy provisions. As a result, members might vote for controversial programs that are incorporated into the budget that they would not support if presented as a standalone vote.

Budget bills are very large, and members are often provided limited time to review the lengthy documents. For example, the 2017 budget bill was made public just before midnight on June 19 and presented on the Senate floor for debate and vote by 4 PM on June 20. As a result, members are unable to adequately review programs and craft amendments that could improve program delivery.
Compounding matters, the General Assembly has effectively dismantled the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee (Ed Oversight), while joint meetings of the House and Senate Education Appropriation subcommittees (Ed Appropriations) are becoming increasingly rare. In the past, these two committees were integral to the creation and oversight of new initiatives.

From its formation in 1990 through 2015, Ed Oversight regularly met during the legislative interim to recommend ways to improve education in the state. However, the committee met just once in the 2015-16 interim, and not at all during the 2016-17 interim.

Similarly, Ed Appropriations—which is responsible for crafting the state budget for public schools, the community college system, and state universities—is meeting less often. Historically, Ed Appropriations meetings during long sessions have been the venue through which General Assembly members undertake detailed, line-item reviews of each state agency’s budget.

2017 marked the first time in known history that Ed Appropriations meetings featured zero in-depth presentations of K-12 funding issues. The General Assembly’s education leaders stood out for their lack of effort. Every other budget subcommittee received detailed presentations covering all, or nearly all, agency budgets.

North Carolina’s teachers, Department of Public Instruction employees, and the academic community are an incredibly valuable resource that should be drawn upon to strengthen our state educational policy. Instead, these voices have increasingly been ignored. As shown below, the net result has been a series of poorly-crafted policies that are harming North Carolina’s children.​

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind into Law.

NCLB, as it was known, is the worst federal education legislation ever passed by Congress. It was punitive, harsh, stupid, ignorant about pedagogy and motivation, and ultimately a dismal failure. Those who still admire NCLB either helped write it, or were paid to like it, or were profiting from it.

It was Bush’s signature issue. He said it would end “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” It didn’t.

When he campaigned for the presidency, he and his surrogates claimed there had been a “Texas miracle.” There wasn’t.

All that was needed, they said, was to test every child in grades 3-8 every year in reading and math. Make the results for schools public. Reward schools that raised scores. Punish schools for lower scores. Then watch as test scores soar, graduation rates rise, and achievement gaps closed. It didn’t happen in Texas nor in the nation.

The theory was simple, simplistic, and stupid: test, then punish or reward.

Congress bought the claim of the Texas miracle and passed NCLB, co-sponsored by leading Republicans and Democrats, including Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman George Miller of California.

Congress mandated that every student in every school must be proficient on standardized tests of reading or math or the school was a failure, facing closure or privatization by 2014. NCLB was a ticking time bomb, set to destroy American public education by setting an impossible goal, one that almost every school in every state would ultimately fail.

It was the largest expansion of the federal role in history. It was the largest intrusion of the federal government into state and local education decisiomaking ever.

It was the stupidest education law ever passed.

Bush’s original proposal was a 28-page document. (I was invited to the White House ceremony where it was unveiled; at the time, I was a member in good standing of the conservative policy elite). By the time the bill passed, the new law exceeded 1,000 pages. A Republican Congressman from Colorado told me that he thought he was the only member who read the whole bill (he voted against it.)

NCLB took the place of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a component of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” Program. The primary purpose of ESEA was to send federal funds to the poorest districts. (During the Clinton administration, ESEA was renamed the Goals 2000 Act and incorporated the lofty education goals endorsed by the first Bush administration.

To learn more about this history and why NCLB failed, read my book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” To learn more about the negative effects of NCLB, read Daniel Koretz’s new book, “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better.” To learn more about the unintended negative effects of accountability, google Richard Rothstein’s monograph “Holding Accountability to Account.”

This is what we got from NCLB: score inflation, cheating, narrowing the curriculum, obsession with test scores, more time devoted to testing, less time for the arts, physical education, history, civics, play, and anything else that was not tested. Among other consequences: demoralization of teachers, a national teacher shortage, more money for testing companies, and less money for teachers and class size reduction.

We also got a load of “reforms” that had no evidence to support them, such as closing schools, firing teachers and principals because of low scores, handing schools with low scores over to charter operators or the state.

NCLB, in turn, led to its ugly spawn, Race to the Top, which was even meaner and more punitive than NCLB. Race to the Top turned up the heat on test scores, making them the measure of teacher quality despite decades of social science that refuted that policy. More teachers and principals were fired,  more public schools were closed, enrollments in professional education programs plummeted across the country.

NCLB was the Death Star of American education. Race to the Top was the Executioner, scouring the land with a giant scythe in search of teachers, principals, and schools to kill if student scores didn’t go up.

When the law was passed, I went to an event at the Willard Hotel in D.C. where key senators discussed it. One of them was Senator Lamar Alexander, former governor of Tennessee, former U.S. Secretary of Education (for whom I worked as Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the Office of Education Research and Improvement). At the end of the panel, when it was time for questions, I asked Senator Alexander whether Congress really believed that every student in the nation would be proficient by 2014. He said that Congress knew they would not be, but “it’s good to have goals.”

So NCLB demanded that schools meet goals they knew were impossible. People were fired, lost their careers and reputations. Schools were closed, communities destroyed. Because “it’s good to have goals.”

Sixteen years ago, NCLB became law. It was a dark day indeed for children, for teachers, for principals, for public education, and for the very nature of learning, which cannot be spurred by incentives or mandates or punishments or rewards.

“You measure what you treasure,” I was told by Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Thinking.

“No,” I replied, “that’s exactly what cannot be measured.” Love, honor, kindness, decency, compassion, family, friends, courage, creativity. No standardized test measures what matters most. I do not treasure what standardized tests measure.

Farewell, NCLB. May you, your progeny, your warped understanding of children and learning disappear from our land, never to be recalled except as an example of a costly failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laura Chapman took the time to research the commercial products that our tax dollars are funding.

 

“The federal “love-in for gamification” on display at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (January, 8, 2018) is really a project of The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. This program, established in 1990, offers grants to help “domestic small businesses” get federal support for projects that have “potential for commercialization.”

“The SBIR (taxpayers) supported more than half of the game-related projects in this year’s Expo. SBIR programs are part of the work at the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Agriculture, and US Department of Education (Institute of Education Sciences, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Office of Educational Technology and Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education).

“SBIR grants are also tied to programs at the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, Environmental Protection Agency, USAID, and NASA

“This lovein is scheduled to have 38 participants. Participants were listed but without much information, so I looked at the website of at each, albeit briefly, in order to see where the investments of taxpayer money is going in support of for-profit ventures in tech.

“More than a handful of these ventures are so well established that on-going federal support for them seems to me unnecessary. I judge that this is not just a commercial showcase for new tech products/services but also a venue for lobbying on behalf of sustained funding for the SBIR program and the many branches of government that sponsor these investments.

“Here is my analysis of the tech products/services being marketed at the love-in.

“THESE ARE FOR SCIENCE AND STEM

1. Alchemie games.com—Machine learning platform for college gateway courses in physics, statistics, or economics.
2. Andamio Games.com— “iNeuron,” app with lessons on basic neuroscience concepts built on state standards.
3. Apprendis.com—Digital science materials, with virtual labs that automatically assess students’ skill level.
4. Future Engineers.org— NASA sponsored design K-12 competition for multi-use tools and customized equipment astronauts can use.
5. IntellAdapt.com—Portfolio of adaptive courses for STEM subjects (pedagogy, “big data” analytics, remediation) with forthcoming “Brainwave Learning Strategy Aptitude Test.”
6. Killer Snails.com—Science games supported by the National Science Foundation, content partner: American Museum of Natural History.
7. Molecular Jig Games.com—Cell biology and immune defense game piloted with 14-19 year old high school students.
8. Querium. com—Online artificial intelligence tutoring platform for “critical STEM skills” in “personalized, bite-sized lessons,” for pre-collgiate students, especially for Texas “partners.”
9. Second Avenue Learning.com—Online multimedia games for STEM learning.
10. Strange Loop Games.com—Virtual reality field trips, science-oriented multiplayer games.
11. The Beamer. Mystery game with questions answered by historically important earth/space scientists.

THESE ARE FOR READING AND SCIENCE VOCABULARY

1. Mtelegence.com. Readorium®, web-based adaptive reading program for middle school, aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core, multimodal vocabulary cards, strategy games, differentiated hints, rewards in “Readorium dollars” and gold medals.
2. SmartyPal.com —App for after school vocabulary and science projects for K-2 and 3-5

“THESE ARE DESIGN AND MULTIMEDIA SERVICES FOR HIRE.

1. Fablevision.com—Full service multi-media game design (Sesame Street, Smithsonian. others)
2. Games That Work.com—Design studio for games with virtual reality, augmented virtual reality, computer generated graphics, multiplayer formats.
3. Parametric Studios.com—Design studio with experience in music, video, web production.
Schell Games.com— Design studio for games, full service for education and entertainment.
4. Sirius Thinking.com—Multi-media education and entertainment company. Talent from Sesame Street, The Electric Company, Nickelodeon, and Jim Henson Productions.
5. Spry Fox.com—Game developer for Apple and all android based devices, some word-building games.·
6. Thought Cycle.com— Game designers associated with University of Oregon projects in CBM Math and DIBELS
7. DIG-IT Games.com—Game design services and analytics. Also markets history, math, and other “quest”-like games.
8. Electric Funstuff.com—Game design service and analytics.

“THESE PRODUCTS FOCUS ON MATHEMATICS

1. Brainquake.com—Math instruction, especially in middle school. via Wuzzit™ Trouble.
2. Fluidity Software.com—Specialist in pen-Computing and 3D scientific visualization with products for teaching math
3. MathBrix.com—Adaptive learning in math for “little minds” with interactive visuals.
4. MidSchoolMath.com—Math program beginning in grade 5, with multimedia, interactive “conceptual narratives” and practice with a “test trainer.”
5. Teachley.com—Math apps for ipads, adaptive program for Common Core, “targeting” at-risk students for intervention.

“THESE COMBINE MATH AND ELA.

1. Children’s Progress Academic Assessment™ (CPAA™)— Non-profit computer adaptive tests for Pre-K ELA and math skills with recommendation system (scaffolding) from Northwest Evaluation Association.
2. Cognitive Toy Box.com—Touchscreen games that teach, test, and recommend practice for ELA and math skills.

THIS IS FOR READING ONLY

Foundations in Learning.com—Remedial reading program grade 2 and up, extended practice with adaptive tests marketed as personalized learning, minor role for teacher as “facilitator”

“THESE ARE FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

1. IDRT.com—Platform and online products for games based on American Sign Language
2. Analytic Measures.com—Automated assessment of spoken responses special populations—young children, second language speakers, and people with cognitive or language disabilities.
3. Soar Technologies.com & Rush Medical University—Video-based artificial intelligence platform for telemedicine, also to assess and train children with autism spectrum disorders for improved social information processing (SIP) skills
4. Speak Agent.com— Interactive audiovisual game activities for learning academic language and vocabulary especially for dual-language and bilingual programs.

“THESE ARE FOR SELF-HELP

1. 3C Institute.com,—Tools to help children build positive peer relationships and social coping skills, behavioral health.
2. 7 Generation Games.com—Advice on work, parenting, sports, school.
3. Mindset Works.com—“Brainology” products and services (growth mindset) developed and marketed by Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University.
4. Scrible.com—Subscription platform for research. Enables tagging, saving, and annotating online resources.

“I am bowing out now. I have overdosed on the hype for these products, too much mindless use of educational jargon as if a panacea. The most intriguing entries (for me) are designed for special populations.”


 

Steven Singer saw my tweet urging Trump and/or DeVos to try to stop publication of my next book (which would make it an instant hit) and he realized his book was already available and had all the right ingredients for censorship.

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/dear-donald-trump-please-try-to-block-publication-of-my-book-too/

Getting blocked on Twitter is one route to fame and free publicity but having the president attempted to block its publication is even better!

 

 

Wendy Lecker, Civil Rights attorney, writes here about an important new book exploring the history of racially unequal and segregated schooling in the United States.

”For children in Baltimore classrooms, 2018 opened with buildings where temperatures never topped 40 degrees. An incensed teacher wondered why persevering in abominable conditions is something “we only ask of black and brown children.”

”A new book by Cornell professor Noliwe Rooks, “Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation and the End of Public Education,” traces the history of separate and unequal education in America.

“White America’s reaction to the prospect of educating children of color has ranged from outright and often violent opposition to promoting weak substitutes for adequately funded, integrated schools — substitutes that fail to ensure educational equity. Throughout U.S. history, these maneuvers have presented opportunities for hoarding resources for the white and affluent and even profiting at the expense of children of color — a phenomenon Rooks calls “segrenomics.”

“From the earliest days of tax-supported public education, states found ways to deny African-American communities equal educational opportunity. One method was to simply refuse to fund African-American schools.
In 1914, South Carolina spent on average $15 per pupil for white schools but fewer than $2 per pupil for black schools. Appalled at the conditions in which African-American children were forced to learn, that state’s superintendent of education remarked: “It is not a wonder that they do not learn more, but the real wonder is that they learn as much as they do.”

“As Rooks chronicles, officials in the South outlawed integration, double-taxed African-Americans, refused to build African-American schools and engaged in violence. Public money, even if raised by African-Americans, almost exclusively benefited white students.

”Rooks illustrates how officials and “reformers” have virtually ignored successful models for education, such as: adequate funding, integration, and community-initiated reforms.

“As she demonstrates, inequality, hoarding and profiting off the backs of poor children of color continue today. Schools have resegregated. States persistently underfund schools serving predominately children of color. They offer false “solutions” that hurt more than help — like charter schools.

“Charters, concentrated in poor communities of color, are no better than public schools, increase segregation and often result in or benefit from closing neighborhood schools.”

Black students comprise 13% of the youth cohort yet many are enrolled in schools that are overwhelmingly Black, or Black and Latino. Levels of segregation declined markedly in the late 1970s and early 1970s as a result of federal policies and court orders, but as enforcement declined and disappeared, segregation increased again. Arne Duncan, in charge of $5 Billion in discretionary money, had a chance to incentivize states to reduce segregation, but he opted instead to focus on test scores and privatization and came up empty.

 

 

 

 

Eric Smith, a high school German teacher, writes here about the joys of teaching. 

At a time when it has become fashionable to complain about teachers, and for teachers to announce why they can’t do it anymore, Smith asserts his powerful belief in his role as a teacher.

”The main reason for my belief that teaching is the best profession is that I’m able to work every day with wonderful, young human beings. People sometimes shake their heads in sympathy when they hear I’m a teacher. They’ve heard how hard it is to teach nowadays. But, although kids have certainly changed and do things differently, they are still energetic, creative and idealistic. They’re passionate and quick to make new friends. I may be having personal worries and problems, but when I greet my students with “Guten Morgen, alle zusammen!” and they reply, “Guten Morgen, Herr Smith!” it is as if a light goes on in the darkness.

“Indeed, I experience my students as brightly shining lights. They have not yet become cynical. They still believe that they can change the world. I consider it my sacred duty to keep their idealism alive and to enable them to really and truly change the world for the better.”

 

 

Veteran educators Shaheer Faltas and Kate Nicholson explain why little children should not be taught coding and computer science. 

Although they write about kindergarten children, the basic principles are the same for very young children of 6 and 7. They may enjoy playing on the computer but take care not to start direct instruction and career preparation for little children. I am not sure when children should start preparing for the computer age, but what they write sounds reasonable to me. What do you think?

They write:

“President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos intend to prioritize science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education by making available $200 million in grants and recommend that coding and computer science skills be taught in K-12 schools across the nation. Though the intention to improve K-12 education is admirable, doubling down on technology in America’s kindergarten classrooms is not the answer.

“As a lifelong educator now running a school in Mill Valley within the orbit of Silicon Valley, and a parent who writes regularly about education, we have daily insight into what tomorrow’s leaders need in order to walk confidently into the future — and it’s not the development of skills like coding.

“All across the country, experienced educators will tell you that putting more digital devices into the hands of young, impressionable children won’t take them where we want them to go. Rather, it will leave students adrift in a sea of obsolescence.

“A quick glimpse at a report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which lists the fastest declining occupations for 2014 to 2024, demonstrates why pushing a narrow skill set — like computer coding — into our youngest grades is unwise. Over the past two decades, entire industries have been gutted by technological advances that were impossible to predict.

”Instead of prioritizing technology first, we need to teach students how to think and adapt, how to communicate and ask questions. Childhood is a cherished, sacred time — one for sparking imagination.

“Indeed, the purpose of K-12 education has expanded beyond offering just content and now entails equipping students with life skills. Elementary school is where the basic foundations of character are built, where self-control takes shape, and where students begin to perceive of themselves as part of a larger community.”

A womderful article!

Let children be children. Defend childhood.

 

Do you believe in miracles? Do you want to believe that a charter chain—unlike public schools— can graduate every student, no matter what their economic status, and send them on to college? We all want to believe in heroic teachers and miracle schools. The reality is often not as impressive in the cold light of day. Incremental change is a stabler, more reliable base for lasting change but it is not so exciting as miracles.

Along comes Jersey Jazzman to debunk the latest miracle charter story promoted by the New York Daily News. 

The story and follow-up editorial cited this statistic about Democracy Prep Charter High Schools:

“According to the network, last year 189 of the 195 seniors in its three high schools that had graduating classes went on to college. And although the sample size is small (the network has graduated fewer than 400 students), the network estimates that 80% of its graduates either are still in college or have graduated.“

Wow! A 97% graduation rate!

The first reason to question the claim is that the article was written by the education policy director of a rightwing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, whose job is to promote privatization.

But Jersey Jazzman had something that the Manhattan Institute didn’t acknowledge and the Daily News didn’t investigate: data on attrition rates from the state education department website. Think of it! Facts! It turns out that 40% of the students enrolled in Democracy Prep in ninth grade left before the end of senior year. Shouldn’t that be included in the story? Why leave it out? In the Democracy Prep School in Camden, “This year’s seniors at Freedom Prep were in a class of 78 freshman. By the fall of their junior year, they were down to 33 students. 58% of the freshmen of the Class of 2018 at Freedom Prep had left by their junior year.” That’s an inconvenient fact for a “miracle” school.

The fault, Jersey Jazzman points out, is not so much with the hired PR flacks nor the thinky tank PR guys as it is with the journalists who swallow these incredible stories without investigating, who forget that miracles should always invite skepticism rather than a dogged will to believe.

 

Mitzi is a rescue dog. A friend found her in a shelter in Hayward, California, and brought her to us in 2013. At the time, she was 3 months old and weighed 30 pounds. Now she weighs 80 pounds. She is the world’s sweetest dog. She loves other dogs and is surprised when they don’t love her back. She snuggles up to strangers, hoping they will pet her. Her most remarkable display of sweetness occurred a few months ago when I brought her with me to the neighborhood pharmacy. There was a man in his mid-30s in a wheelchair. His arms were curled and bent. He looked very unhappy. Mitzi broke away from me and ran to him; for an instant, I worried what she was doing. Then I saw she was kissing his arms and reached up to kiss his face. Everyone stopped what they were doing to watch what was happening. The man smiled broadly. Mitzi loved him. He wasn’t unhappy anymore.

This video was made on Saturday after the Grayson snowstorm in  Brooklyn. You will see that Mitzi’s favorite activity is what I call snow-diving. When she left home, she had four mittens on her paws. You will hear my voice in the background, laughing, then saying that she just lost the third one. After this short video, she got rid of the fourth one. She doesn’t care that they protect her paws from the salt that people put on the snow to melt it. I give up. No more paw covers for Mitzi. No more coat either. She shakes it off. She loves the snow.

 

 

In his passion to make America “great” again, Trump chooses to ignore science, which has been one of the basic sources of American ingenuity, progress, and economic growth. His idea of “greatness” seems to be firmly rooted in the 1920s, if not earlier.

In this article in the New York Times, two prominent scientists describe Trump’s atavistic disdain for science.

“After almost a year in office, President Trump has yet to name a science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Since World War II, no American president has shown greater disdain for science — or more lack of awareness of its likely costs.

“The O.S.T.P. was authorized by Congress in May 1976 to give the president “independent, expert judgment and assistance on policy matters which require accurate assessments of the complex scientific and technological features involved.” It has played an important role in coordinating national science and technology activities and policies among federal agencies.

“The director of the office, who is nominated by the president and requires Senate approval, typically serves as the president’s science adviser, providing him with confidential, unbiased counsel. Much of what the federal government does and the many policy changes the president and his appointees are now making or hope to make have scientific and technological underpinnings.

“The science adviser is the one individual who can quickly pull all the relevant information together for the president, cut through conflicting advice coming from other senior advisers and Cabinet secretaries, and get evidence-based options in front of him. Especially important has been the adviser’s role in helping the president deal with crises — Sept. 11, the subsequent anthrax attacks, the Fukushima nuclear nightmare in 2011, the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, hurricane devastation and cyberattacks.

“The previous O.S.T.P. director, John Holdren, a physicist and energy-policy expert from Harvard, was named to the position hardly a month after the 2008 elections and was then quickly approved by the Senate. He served throughout President Barack Obama’s two terms. In June 2001, five months into his first term, George W. Bush nominated the physicist John Marburger, then director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, to the post; he served until Dr. Holdren stepped in.

“Today, the O.S.T.P. maintains only a skeleton staff led by the deputy chief technology officer, Michael Kratsios, a technologically inexperienced Silicon Valley financier holding just a bachelor’s degree in political science. The posts of deputy director and four congressionally mandated associate directors remain vacant.

“It’s difficult to know what Mr. Trump really thinks about scientific issues of public concern, but he has rejected the scientific arguments for human-caused climate change and questioned the public-health case for vaccinations. And he has ignored the negative impacts of his immigration bans on American science and technology.”

We are cursed to have a president who is an ignoramus and proud of it.