Archives for category: Teaching
« Older Entries

Jan Resseger: Rebuffing the Attacks on Teachers and Public Schools

By dianeravitch
May 13, 2026 //
4

Jan Resseger is a careful researcher in Ohio who tracks education issues with careful attention to facts, details, and context. In this post, she notes that public schools have become the targets of ideologues in state legislatures and even the U.S. Department of Education. All too often, politicians use the public schools as a punching bag, but know nothing of their work or their accomplishments. werethe fsmiliar with the work and the accomplishments of teachers, she believes, state and federal officials would thank teachers instead disparaging them.

In recent local elections, voters in nearly 2/3 of school districts turned down relatively small property tax increases to fund the schools, usually repairs and physical upgrades. Legislators said this proved that voters are not happy with public schools, but Jan believes the election results reflect the squeeze of inflation and affordability caused by Trump’s policies and by the state’s failure to fund public schools adequately as it continues to expand charters and vouchers. Ohio has a Republican supermajority in both houses of its legislature, and they are eagerly funding charters and vouchers despite disappointing results.

As Jan writes, if the critics were familiar with the daily work of teachers, they would be champions of public schools, not critics.

She writes:

Attacks on the nation’s public schools fill the news. After last week’s May primary election in Ohio, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee reportedly blamed public schools for a statewide property tax revolt: “(T)hrowing money at schools stuck in an old way of thinking won’t solve any problems.”

And at the federal level at the end of April, the U.S. Department of Education, by amending federal guidance, stopped defining public school teachers and administrators as professionals by setting formal regulations that will mean graduate students in education cannot borrow as much money to pay for graduate school as others the Trump administration defines as professionals.  Education Week’s Evie Blad reports that a new federal regulation finalized by the U.S. Department of Education would “exclude education from a list of  ‘professional’ graduate degrees subjected to higher loan limits… The final rule lists the following graduate degrees as ‘professional’: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology.”  The new rule will make it harder for educators to afford graduate school by setting “new limits on federal student loans” for teachers and school administrators seeking advanced degrees to enhance their content knowledge and meet requirements for licensure.

The Department of Education must publish in the Federal Register new rules that are being proposed, and receive public comments prior to making the new rules final.  In the case of redefining graduate programs in education as non-professional, there was considerable pushback from the public. Secretary McMahon’s department ignored the comments.  For K-12 Dive, Anna Merod and Ben Unglesbee report: “Commenters told the department that impacted degree programs include master of arts in teaching, master of education, education specialist, master of library sciences, and doctor of education… The department’s final rule said the agency received many public comments calling for including education as a professional degree or to otherwise allow higher borrowing levels for students pursuing advanced education degrees.  In their arguments, commenters cited teacher shortages and the importance of graduate programs for licensure advancement… Additionally commenters noted that career changers who want to enter the profession pursue master’s degrees in education for certification, especially in high-need areas.”

Many of us value public education, but increasingly we take these institutions for granted. While schools are essential to our neighborhoods, our communities and our children, most of us have not been inside a school for years due to lockdowns during our society’s epidemic of gun violence. Constitutional law professor, Derek W. Black recently shared some statistics which ought to remind us why public schools are so essential and at the same time so vulnerable to politics: “(A)s the largest government institution in the United States, public education is an obvious potential target of those aiming to undermine faith in government institutions. Public education is twice the size of the entire federal government. More important, it represents the most extensive and persistent relationship that citizens ever have with government. Public schools educate roughly ninety percent of Americans for more than a decade during their formative years.”

The Attack on Public Schools

The late Mike Rose, who devoted his long career at UCLA to preparing future members of the teaching profession, worried about what has, since the Reagan administration’s 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, been a political attack on the nation’s public schools: “Citizens in a democracy must continually assess the performance of their public institutions. But the quality and language of that evaluation matter. Before we can evaluate, we need to be clear about what it is that we’re evaluating, what the nature of the thing is: its components and intricacies, its goals and purpose…. Neither the sweeping rhetoric of public school failure nor the narrow focus on test scores helps us here.  Both exclude the important, challenging work done daily in schools across the country, thereby limiting the educational vocabulary and imagery available to us. This way of talking about schools constrains the way we frame problems and blinkers our imagination…”   (Why School? 2014 edition, pp 203-204)

Rose responded with a three year series of visits across the United States to the classrooms of excellent teachers identified by academics, by their peers, and by school district leaders. In the book which grew out of his school visits, Possible Lives, Rose described teachers at work and reflected on what school teachers do: “Our national discussion about public schools is despairing and dismissive, and it is shutting down our civic imagination. I visited schools for three and a half years, and what struck me early on—and began to define my journey—was how rarely the kind of intellectual and social richness I was finding was reflected in the public sphere… We hear—daily, it seems—that our students don’t measure up, either to their predecessors in the United States or to their peers in other countries… We are offered, by both entertainment and news media, depictions of schools as mediocre places, where students are vacuous and teachers are not so bright; or as violent and chaotic places, places where order has fled and civility has been lost.  It’s hard to imagine anything good in all this.” (Possible Lives, p. 1)

What do teachers do?

Here instead, however, is what those three years showed Rose about school teachers and the complexity of their work: “To begin, the teachers we spent time with were knowledgeable. They knew subject matter or languages or technologies, which they acquired in a variety of ways: from formal schooling to curriculum-development projects to individual practice and study. In most cases, this acquisition of knowledge was ongoing, developing; they were still learning and their pursuits were a source of excitement and renewal… As one teaches, one’s knowledge plays out in social space, and this is one of the things that makes teaching such a complex activity… The teachers we observed operate with a knowledge of individual students’ lives, of local history and economy, and of social-cultural traditions and practices… A teacher must use these various kind of knowledge—knowledge of subject matter, of practice, of one’s students, of relation—within the institutional confines of mass education. The teachers I visited had, over time, developed ways to act with some effectiveness within these constraints… At heart, the teachers in Possible Lives were able to affirm in a deep and comprehensive way the capability of the students in their classrooms. Thus the high expectations they held for what their students could accomplish… Such affirmation of intellectual and civic potential, particularly within populations that have been historically devalued in our society gives to these teachers’ work a dimension of advocacy, a moral and political purpose.”  (Possible Lives, pp. 418-423)

In a comprehensive 2014 summary, Rose defines what teachers do:  “Some of the teachers I visited were new, and some had taught for decades. Some organized their classrooms with desks in rows, and others turned their rooms into hives of activity. Some were real performers, and some were serious and proper. For all the variation, however, the classrooms shared certain qualities… The classrooms were safe. They provided physical safety…. but there was also safety from insult and diminishment…. Intimately related to safety is respect…. Talking about safety and respect leads to a consideration of authority…. A teacher’s authority came not just with age or with the role, but from multiple sources—knowing the subject, appreciating students’ backgrounds, and providing a safe and respectful space. And even in traditionally run classrooms, authority was distributed…. These classrooms, then, were places of expectation and responsibility…. Overall the students I talked to, from primary-grade children to graduating seniors, had the sense that their teachers had their best interests at heart and their classrooms were good places to be.”

Reacquainting ourselves with Mike Rose’s thinking is one way for us all to consider the complexity of public schools as institutions and the challenges faced by the professionals who spend six or seven hours every day working with our children.  I fear that few of the state legislators and federal officials who deride teachers, who insult teachers by denying their professional status, and who chronically underfund public schools have recently spent much time visiting a public school.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Failure, Ohio, Teachers, Teachers and Teaching, Teaching, Tennessee

Jennifer Berkshire: The Collapsing Dream of Ed-Tech in the Schools

By dianeravitch
March 18, 2026 //
13

When I wrote a history of public schools in the 20th century (Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms), I couldn’t help but notice a consistent pattern: an infatuation with fads and panaceas, not by teachers but by pundits and education professors.

Teachers struggled with large class sizes, obsolete textbooks, and low pay, but the buzz was all too often focused on the latest magical reform. At one extreme was militaristic discipline, at the other was the romantic idea of letting children learn when they wanted and whatever they wanted to. Phonics or whole language? Interest or effort?

Every reform had some truth in it, but the extremes must have been very frustrating to teachers. There is no single method that’s just right for every child all the time.

The latest fad is Ed-tech, the belief that children will learn more and more efficiently if they spend a large part of their time on a computer.

My views were influenced by something I read in 1984. The cover story of Forbes was about “The Coming Revolution in Education.” The stories in the issue was about the promise of technology. Curiously, the magazine’s technology editor wrote a dissent. In 1984 Forbes published an article about the promise of computers in the schools. He wrote: “The computer is a tool, like a hammer or a wrench, not a philosophers’ stone. What kind of transformation will computers generate in kids? Just as likely as producing far more intelligent kids is the possibility that you will create a group of kids fixated on screens — television, videogame or computer.” He predicted that “in the end it is the poor who will be chained to the computer; the rich will get teachers.”

For the past few decades, Ed-tech has been the miracle elixir that will solve all problems..

But now, writes Jennifer Berkshire, there is a backlash against Ed-tech among parents and teachers.

They may have realized that the most fervent promoters of Ed-tech are vendors of Ed-tech products.

Berkshire, one of our sharpest observers of education trends, describes the backlash:

Stories about parents rebelling against big tech are everywhere right now. They’re sick of the screens, the hoovering up of their children’s data, and they view AI and its rapid incursion into schools as a menace, not a ‘co-pilot’ for their kids’ education. This is a positive development, in my humble opinion, especially since the backlash against the tech takeover of schools crosses partisan lines. Meanwhile, pundits and hot takers are weighing in, declaring the era of edtech, not just a failure, but the cause of our failing schools.

Which raises a not insignificant question. Now that everyone who is anyone agrees that handing schools over to Silicon Valley was big and costly mistake, how did the nation’s teachers and students end up on the receiving end of this experiment in the first place? And here is where our story grows murky, dear reader. In fact, if you’re old enough to remember the absolute mania around ‘personalized learning’ that took hold during the Obama era, count yourself as fortunate. Because lots of the same influential, not to mention handsomely compensated, folks who were churning out ‘reports’about our factory-era schools 15 minutes ago, suddenly seemed cursed by failing memories.

The not-so-wayback-machine

If you need a refresher to summon forth the 2010-era ed tech frenzy, proceed directly to Audrey Watters’ unforgettable write-up: “The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade.” Watters’ has moved on to a new newsletter and AI refusal, but her once lonely voice as the ‘Cassandra’ of education technology remains as essential as ever. Her tally of “ed-tech failures and fuck-ups and flawed ideas” is studded with now tarnished silver bullets that promised to transform our factory-era schools into futuristic tech centers, making a pretty penny in the process: AltSchool, inBloom, Rocketship, Amplify, DreamBox, Summit… The names have changed or been forgotten but the throughline—a fundamental misunderstanding of schools and teaching combined with the promise of hefty returns—remains constant.

My own introduction to the ed tech hustle came back in 2015. Jeb Bush’s annual convening for his group, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, or FEE, to use its comically apt acronym, came to Boston. To which I said, ‘sign me up!’ Always an early adapter (see, for example, school vouchers in Florida), FEE was unabashedly pro technology, as I wrote in a story for the Baffler.

It’s one of FEE’s articles of faith that the solutions to our great educational dilemmas are a mere click away—if, that is, the schools and the self-interested dullards who run them would just accept the limitless possibilities of technology. Of course, these gadgets don’t come cheap. And this means that, like virtually all the other innovations touted by our postideological savants of education reform, the vision of a tech-empowered American student body calls for driving down our spending on teaching (labor costs account for the lion’s share of the $600 billion spent on public education in the United States each year) and pumping up our spending on gizmos.

In virtually every session I attended, someone would relate a story about a device that was working education miracles, followed by a familiar lament: if only the teachers, or their unions, or the education ‘blob’ would get out of the way. 

False profits

In a recent piece for Fortune, reporter Sasha Rogelberg offers an interesting origin story for the tech takeover of public education. And you don’t need to read past the title to get where she’s going: ‘American schools weren’t broken until Silicon Valley used a lie to convince them they were—now reading and math scores are plummeting.’ I’d make the header even clunkier and add ‘the education reform industry’ to the mix. While the push to get tech into classrooms predates Obama-era education reform (check out Watters’ fantastic history of personalized learning, Teaching Machines, for the extended play version), it was the reformers’ zeal, when married to Silicon Valley’s profit optimization, would prove so irresistible. 

In the last hundred years, the base of the United States economy has shifted from industry to knowledge—but the average American classroom operates in much the same way it always has: one teacher, up to thirty same-age students, four walls. This report from StudentsFirst argues that this one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t cut it in the modern world, in which mastery of higher-order knowledge and skills ought to matter more than time spent in front of a teacher—and that what we need is competency-based education. This approach, also known as the “personalized model,” is characterized by advancing students through school based on what they know and can do, using assessments to give them timely, differentiated support, made easier by the introduction of learning technology.

StudentsFirst, the hard-charging school reform org started by Michelle Rhee, has since been eaten by 50CAN, which now advocates for school vouchers, but the fare they offered up was standard. Indeed, here’s a fun activity for you. Revisit any prominent reform group, individual, or cause and you will find the same argument about our factory-era schools, followed, inevitably, by the same sales pitch for a tech-centric solution. 

Race to the Top, Obama’s signature education reform initiative, didn’t just bribe cash-strapped states to overhaul their teacher evaluation systems. It also ‘encouraged’ states to shift their standardized tests online. And Arne Duncan and Obama’s Department of Education actively courted the tech industry, encouraging them to think of schools as a space ripe for disruption. “Many of today’s young people will be working at jobs that don’t currently exist,” warned the XQ Institute, the reform org started by Steve Jobs’ widow, Laurene Powell Jobs. Today Powell Jobs presides over the Atlantic, where new panic pieces regarding young, tech addled dumb dumbs appear seemingly every day.

Warning signs

My obsessive interest in the intersection of education and politics began back in 2012, when my adopted home state of Massachusetts came down with a serious—and well-funded—case of education reform fever. At a time when red states were crushing the collective bargaining rights of teachers (Wisconsin, anyone?), I was struck by how often reform-minded Democrats ended up repurposing the right’s anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-public-school rhetoric for their own righteous cause. Ed tech sat right smack in the center of this queasy juncture—beloved by liberal reformers, ensorcelled by press releases promising higher test scores, and conservatives who liked the idea of spending less on schools by replacing teachers with machines.

Recall, if you will, Rocketship charter schools, whose innovative blended learning model caused the test scores of its students—almost all poor and minority—to go up like a rocket. Richard Whitmire’s fawning 2013 book, On the Rocketship: How Top Charter Schools Are Pushing the Envelope, is a veritable time capsule of the era. Unlike the fusty Model-T schools of yore, Rocketship schools were tech forward. Students spent a chunk of each day in so-called Learning Labs, taking, retaking or practicing taking tests, a practice that had a measurable impact, especially since 50 percent of teachers’ pay was tied to test scores ascending. All that clicking also translated into dollar signs, wrote Whitmire. “A major cost-saving solution was for students to spend significant time working on laptops in large groups supervised by noncertified, lower-paid “instructional lab specialists.”

Rocketship has since fallen back to earth, in part because of stellar reporting like this from Anya Kamenetz, documenting the chain’s less savory practices. But it’s hard to overstate just how excited the reform world was about this stuff. Next time you hear an edu-pundit bemoaning the take over of kindergarten classrooms by big tech, remember that Rocketship got there first. “[K]indergarten teachers are spending less time making letter sounds,” co-founder Preston Smith told Kamenetz. And reformers couldn’t get enough.

Whodunit?

Investigative reporter Amy Littlefield has an intriguing-sounding new book out in which she uses the model of an Agatha Christie novel to suss out who killed abortion rights in the US. I imagine that taking a similar approach to the question of how big tech conquered public education would end up in Murder on the Orient Express territory. That’s the classic Christie whodunit in which everyone on the train ends up having ‘dunit.’ These days, there is a comical effort underway by reformers to distance themselves from the tech takeover—what train? I’ve never been on a train! But the idea that Silicon Valley had the cure for all that ailed the nation’s public schools was absolutely central to Obama-era education reform.

I’d locate the zenith of the reform/tech love affair in 2017 when New Schools Venture Fund, a reform org that funds all of the other orgs, laid down a challenge, or rather, a big bet. At its annual summit, backed by a who’s who of tech funders—Gates, Zuckerberg, Walton, NSVF called for big philanthropy to bet big on tech-based personalized learning. “The world has changed dramatically … and our schools have struggled to keep up,” then CEO Stacey Childress warned the crowd. But not all the news was bad. Going all in on education innovation would also pay off handsomely, claimed NSVF, producing an estimated 200 to 500 percent return on investment. And lest parents, teachers and students failed to adequately appreciate the various reimaginings they were in for, NSVF had an answer for that too: a $200 million ad campaign to “foster understanding and demand.”

As I was preparing to type a sentence about how poorly NSVF’s “Big Bet on the Future of American Education” has aged, a press release popped up in my inbox, announcing that Netflix founder Reed Hastings is joining forces with Democrats for Education Reform or DFER. “Just as Netflix replaced a one-size-fits-all broadcast model with something more personal and responsive, Hastings believes public education can make the same leap.”

AI is a once-in-a-thousand-year shift, and what happens in K-12 is at the center of it. The schools that figure out how to combine individualized software with teachers focused on social-emotional development are going to unlock something we’ve never seen before.

Of course, transforming “a school system in desperate need of reinvention” the way that Hastings reinvented home entertainment will require “governance innovation and political will.” No doubt an ad campaign is in the works too. And convincing education ‘consumers’ that individualized software = school is going to be a tough sell as the Great Big Tech Backlash accelerates.

That’s my big bet.

Categories Curriculum, Disruption, Education Industry, For-Profit, Funding, History, Innovation, Online Learning, Standardized Testing, Teaching, Technology, Computers, Virtual Charter Schools

Audrey Watters: The Dangerous Politics of Ed-Tech

By dianeravitch
March 28, 2025 //
2

Audrey Watters is a veteran blogger who has written about Ed-tech for many years, including a book about the history of Ed-tech, Teaching Machines: A History of Personalized Learning. Ed-tech concerns all of us so you might consider following her blog.

This entry describes an upcoming conference where ASU and Global Silicon Valley bring together Ed-tech entrepreneurs to coo over the lucrative markets just around the corner.

She begins:

The Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will speak at the ASU+GSV Summit next month.

The conference makes no mention in its blurb promoting the Secretary’s appearance of what happened last week: President Trump’s executive order to dismantle her department. There’s no mention of any of the other actions that this administration has taken since January to undermine public education: defunding federal programs, firing federal employees, suing colleges, withholding funding, undermining civil rights initiatives, slashing university research, targeting trans students and athletes, arresting and deporting foreign students and professors. No mention at all of any controversy or crisis. Just this: “Guided by our North Star of unity, the ASU+GSV Summit brings together leaders shaping the future of learning and work—because when all voices are heard, innovation thrives to improve education and access for ALL.”

And that, my friends, is some bullshit.

The ASU+GSV Summit, held every year since 2010, is one of the go-to events of the year for entrepreneurs and investors, a gathering place for those seeking to reform (read: privatize) education. The only “unity” I’ve witnessed at the event – both in person and from afar – has been in the conformity of its attendees to a neoliberal vision for a technological future of individualized achievement…

Indeed, it’s quite telling that many who work in and with education technology seem awfully amped about what’s going on – the cooing about the possibility of more technology now that the Department of Education is being gutted, not to mention, of course, the non-stop narratives about the inevitability, the promise of AI in schools – impossible not read as a threat alongside DOGE’s plans to “unleash AI” across the public sphere. All this should underscore that education technology is an industry, a field that appears quite comfortable with its complicity in this autocratic move away from democracy and towards fascism.

“Not me!” perhaps you’re spluttering. “That’s not what I think.” “That’s not how I use technology.” “That’s not what my school is doing.” “That’s not the product we’re building.” But I’m not sure how long people can keep saying this when ideology, when evidence, when procurement not just points but pushes in another direction. 

It’s akin to Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s description of the enigma of “racism without racists“: funny how we have woken up in techno-fascism without anyone being techno-fascist.

See, ASU+GSV isn’t some weird outlier. It is ed-tech. And the most powerful voices in ed-tech have, for some time now, called for the end of public education, the end of teachers’ unions, the end of local school boards, the end of democracy. 

This isn’t some recent or radical takeover of ed-tech either – folks, the fascist phone-call is coming from inside the building. It’s been ringing off the hook for decades now.

In the second portion of this post, Watters describes two new Ed-tech startups inspired by Elon Musk. She relates the new Ed-tech ventures and AI enthusiasm to the rebirth of eugenics and the resurgence of white supremacy and racism. Some of the Ed-tech gurus reject democracy altogether.

You should read the piece in its entirety. I found it on the web, read it for free, then subscribed.

Categories Curriculum, Disruption, Education Industry, Fake, For-Profit, Fraud, Teaching, Technology

John Thompson: We Must Revive Civics Education

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2025 //
9

John Thompson, retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma, reviews a book about how to teach civics in this era.

He writes:

Lindsey Cormack’s How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It’s Up to You to Do It) “offers an engaging and practical approach to discussing political issues and the inner workings of the U.S. government with children.” And guess what? How to Raise a Citizen doesn’t dump the entire challenge on schools and educators, as was the norm for corporate school reformers! She presents “a tool for parents, educators, and anyone eager to fill this gap.”

Cormack explains that, “Nationwide assessments reveal that civic knowledge hasn’t improved since 1998, and “Scores on Advanced Placement government tests are consistently among the lowest across all AP offerings.”

Cormack pushes back on the 21st century test-driven, competition-driven ideology which demanded that individual teachers must be accountable for data-driven, supposedly transformative change.  How to Raise a Citizen calls for mindsets which the Billionaires Boys Club insisted were “excuses” made by teachers with “low expectations.” She writes that “we need parents to play a key role, and to support integrating civics into every grade, starting early and building on concepts just like we do with other subjects.” Cormack challenges society to:

Imagine if parents took on this role by discussing government and politics at the dinner table, encouraging their children to ask questions and showing them how to get involved in community and local government activities.

Cormack then explains, “We need parents to play a key role, and to support integrating civics into every grade, starting early and building on concepts just like we do with other subjects.”

Both parents and educators should first focus on young children, helping them build a “vocabulary and awareness of governmental structures.” Then they should help middle schoolers and high schoolers to “handle broader concepts and ideas” so they “can and do engage in community involvement.”

By high school, there should be a team effort for “turning theory into action.” Cormack explains, “Experts agree that a high-quality civic education requires ‘action civics,’ in which students learn by doing rather than just reading. Simulations of elections, legislative hearings and courtroom activities are examples of active learning shown to be impactful and memorable.”

A resource to enhance history and civics programs explores national, state, and local elections and offers diffe…

I am struck by three points that Cormack makes. First, the adults should guide efforts where the goal is deep learning about the political process, not politicizing lessons by guiding outcomes favored by one political group or another.

Secondly, this reprioritization of active learning “has to happen day in and day out, during presidential election years and all others.” Committing to this, we can raise a generation of informed, active citizens ready to take on the challenges of our democracy.

Thirdly, she makes a case for hopefulness.

How to Raise a Citizen reminds me about the ways my high school students and I taught each other how to actively participate in our democracy. My principal knew that I would refuse to follow vertically aligned curriculum pacing guides which teachers were supposed to obey so that we would “all be on the same page” regarding the teach-to-the-test schedule.  Our class’ schedule for teaching state “Standards,” as opposed to standardized tests, was different whenever there was a presidential or mid-term election, or when state or local politics took over the headlines, or when extreme events, like the Murrah Building bombing, 9/11, or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan occurred.    

I would “horizontally” align our civics and/or history lessons in terms of what was being taught in other classes, and events in the community. For instance, when English classes started reading Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man, I would teach about Ellison’s experiences growing up in Oklahoma City, such as the cruel joke that was played on him that inspired the famous “Battle Royal” scene.

Our inner city students’ reading levels ranged from 2nd grade to college levels. We would use graphs, photos, audio and film clips, and other interventions to help all of them comprehend challenging concepts. Above all, they saw high-level instruction as a sign of respect, and responded by learning how to learn in a holistic and meaningful way.  

The students were especially insightful when guest lecturers visited, and during field trips to places like art museums, “Deep Deuce,” where Ellison grew up, and the state Capitol. This was especially true when a veteran of the Sit-In movement joined us in repeated trips to the Capitol. Legislators were always enthralled by the students’ wisdom.  

When teaching abortion rights, I would reveal to my students, who mostly held anti-abortion beliefs, that I had been a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, but everyone was free to their own opinion. I told them that I preferred the role of a teacher and referring to students as “pro-life,” as opposed to calling them “anti-choice,” which had been my job as a lobbyist.

Students frequently were more conservative than me regarding social issues, and some would come to class a day after a stimulating discussion, and pass on responses made by their parents or grandparents when they discussed our lessons from the previous day. One even brought his preacher to class, resulting in a diverse and meaningful conversation.  And since I taught with the door open, parents walking down the hall would come in and join the discussions.

For instance, one father overheard our lesson on the Tulsa Massacre, which then was called the “Tulsa Race Riot.” He asked the class what name the massacre should be given, and then shifted gears and taught a lesson about anti-Jewish Pogroms. The kids figured out what he meant and shouted, “The Tulsa Pogrom!”

The next day, he came back and gave us a photo of Malcolm X shaking Martin Luther King’s hand, and taught a lesson on the Booker T. Washington to Malcolm X tradition and the W.E.B. DuBois to Martin Luther King tradition. (Clara Luper, the leader of the nation’s longest lasting Sit-In movement, did almost the same thing in another class; the students were thrilled when she challenged me by saying the Malcolm X tradition deserved respect but I shouldn’t give it respect equal to the MLK tradition.)

And that brings me to Cormack’s third basic point, bringing hope that schools, families, and communities can come together and nurture a commitment to civics education, and a 21st century democracy. A few years ago, I would have seen her optimism as a self-evident truth. Now, I worry that our failures to teach civics and history have helped undermine our society’s commitment political institutions. But, I try to focus on cross-generational and cross-cultural conversations. Cormack’s book, and memories of my students’ successes, restore my hope that we can push back against systemic challenges, and, as she emailed me, “build pathways for students and schools to thrive.”

Categories Civics, Curriculum, Education Reform, Ethics, Teaching

Carol Burris: How Teachers Should Teach PragerU Videos

By dianeravitch
August 15, 2023 //
27

Without any evidence, rightwing talk show host Dennis Prager is convinced that the nation’s public schools are swamped with left wing propaganda. Therefore he feels no compunction about producing rightwing propaganda for the schools and frankly acknowledges that he intends to indoctrinate students with his “PragerU” videos.

Carol Burris, a veteran teacher and principal, gas advice for teachers compelled to use Prager propaganda.

Since the last mid-term election, when young adults came out in high numbers for Democrats, the far-right has stepped up attacks on public schools.  Part of their long-term strategy to stay in power is to mind-snatch young people from public school curricula filled with what they call “dominant left-wing ideology,” hoping to shape the voting habits of the next generation. I never saw any “left-wing indoctrination” in my 30-plus years working in public education, nor do I see it now in my grandchildren’s public schools, but the right wing does, and it wants American parents to believe it is there, too. 

 

The strategy to convince the public that nonexistent problems exist is one part ban, two parts alternatives—ban books and topics and then impose “snoopervision” of curriculum and library books, establish vouchers and classical charter schools, and provide alternative and supplementary materials for those who remain in public schools to shape young minds. 

 

Enter PragerU. PragerU, despite the U, is not a university but rather a website-based nonprofit media company founded by Dennis Prager, a self-important pseudo-intellectual with no advanced university degree or teaching credentials. The website has become famous for its videos “that promote liberty, economic freedom, and Judeo-Christian values.” 

 

Dennis Prager, once a Jimmy Carter Democrat, has now made a career out of sounding the alarm that the barbarians are at the gates. In 1996, he testified at a Congressional hearing against gay marriage. He argues that Judaism rejects homosexuality  and that “the acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual marital love signifies the decline of Western civilization.” Like Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson, he excels at making the undereducated to whom Trump professed his love think he is the smartest person in the room. He gives old-fashioned bigotry and right-wing propaganda an intellectual sheen. 

 

PragerU is not new. It has been around for about a decade but has recently been in the news since the Florida Board of Education approved its “mind-changing” five-minute videos called PragerU Kids for classroom use. New Hampshire and Oklahoma, two states with state superintendents who are idealogues, may soon follow Florida’s lead.

 

What should teachers do with PragerU materials, especially if they are told to use them?

 

Put them to good use. Use them to teach students how to debunk propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Researchers at Michigan State University conducted an extensive study on how to battle online campaigns and materials intended to disinform. They found that moderation and even content bans don’t work. What does is teaching how to evaluate information critically, and it works best before opinions harden—hence the importance of teaching such critical thinking K-12.

 

 To teach such skills, I recommend a technique used extensively in the International Baccalaureate curriculum known as OPVL.

·       The O in OPVL stands for origin. Students first determine who published it and when and where it was published. They research what is known about the author that is relevant to the source’s evaluation.

·        P explores purpose. What message is the material trying to convey? Who is the intended audience, and why was that particular delivery format chosen?

·       V stands for value. To determine value, students answer questions such as, “What can we tell about the author’s perspective, and on which side of controversy does the author stand?” “What was occurring when the piece was created, and how accurately does this piece reflect what was happening?” 

·       Finally, L identifies limitations. Students determine methods to verify content and answer questions such as “Is the piece inaccurate in its depiction of a time period? What is excluded? What is purposefully left unaddressed?” 

PragerUKids provides a treasure trove of videos that are perfect for the initial teaching of this technique because the bias is blatant, and the false information is so easy to identify. For example, there is “PragerU’s Leo and Layla’s History Adventures with Frederick Douglass,” which you can watch here. 

 

The video is billed as providing “an honest and accurate look at slavery” and “how to create change.” It begins with wide-eyed Leo and Layla watching news reports of Black Lives Matter protests. Leo tells his sister that his math teacher teaches social justice instead of math. It then morphs into the siblings talking to Frederick Douglass, who both condemns slavery while serving as an apologist for the founding fathers. He tells the kids that the founders did not like slavery but needed to achieve the higher goal of forming a nation. The three then wrap up the discussion with a not-so-veiled condemnation of the protests following George Floyd’s murder.

 

Students as young as middle school could easily recognize that the purpose (P) of the video is not to present an “honest and accurate look at slavery” but rather to condemn protests as a form of initiating social change. The delivery method, a Black historical iconic figure, is deliberately chosen as the messenger—inaccurately depicting Douglass as a victim of slavery who understands the oppressors, portraying them as deliverers of a higher purpose. 

 

Determination of value (V) allows students to explore the BLM protests themselves, what the video excludes (the murder of George Floyd), and what misinformation it presents (protestors “want to abolish the police” and “the U.S. system torn down.”)

 

Further discussion of limitations (L) would note the exclusion of how slavery finally ended (not through gradual change but through civil war); the contradiction between cartoon Douglass’s claim that “our founding fathers knew that slavery was evil and wrong,” and the fact that according to Newsweek, two-thirds of the founding fathers kept slaves, and the easily debunked claim that “it was America that began the conversation to end it [slavery]”  (abolishment of slavery: Spain-1811; Britain-1833; Denmark-1846; France-1848; Netherlands 1861; the United States—1863).  Students could then discuss why the video uses the phrase “began the conversation” –also untrue but harder to disprove.

 

The beauty of OPVL, is that the teacher teaches the technique, but the students and the source reveal the content. One thing we know about the current disinformation campaign of the right is that it will only get worse. We can’t ban or stop it, but we can give young people the tools to see through it.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, DeSantis, Education Industry, Ethics, Extremism, Fake, Florida, Propaganda, Teaching

The Rightwing Scheme to Upend Education—at $125 an Hour

By dianeravitch
July 9, 2023 //
67

Todd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria write here about a school board in Pennsylvania that hired a pricey consultant to improve the district’s curriculum. The consultant had scant experience in his field, but that is no barrier these days to telling teachers what to teach. He did have one important credential: he was a graduate of Hillsdale College, the bastion of Christian conservatism in education. The article appears on the blog Popular Information. Please open the link to read the full post.

They begin:

On June 20, educational consultant Jordan Adams delivered a much-anticipated presentation to the Pennridge School Board, revealing his recommended changes to the Eastern Pennsylvania school district’s social studies curriculum. Adams, the founder of Vermilion Education, appeared via Zoom. The curriculum experts who work for the district recommended that first grade social studies focus on “Rules and Responsibilities,” “Geography,” and “Important People and Places.” Adams instead proposed that 6- and 7-year-olds learn “American History: 1492-1787” and “World History: Ancient Near East.”

In his presentation, first reported by the Bucks County Beacon, Adams did not discuss how teachers could provide instruction on nearly 300 years of American history to students still learning to read and tie their shoes. Nor did Adams explain why his “chronological” approach was superior to the school district’s proposed curriculum. Adams spent less than 90 seconds covering his proposal to completely restructure social studies for Grades 1 through 5, before moving on to his recommendations for older students.

Popular Information asked Adams about his process for curriculum development and how he came to the conclusion that his proposed changes would be beneficial to first graders and other students. Adams responded that he was asked to provide “a high-level overview” and his recommendations “aim to provide students with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of American and world history and civics, reflective of historical figures, ideas, and events that have had an outsized impact on the world today….”

It was an unusual approach for a consultant the school district is paying thousands of dollars to provide guidance. Notably, Adams, who is 31, does not have any experience developing curricula for public schools. According to Adams, he launched his company, Vermilion Education, in March. (It was formally incorporated in December 2022.) Under questioning from Pennridge School Board member Ronald Wurz, Adams admitted that Pennridge was Vermilion Education’s only public school client. (Asked if he has any other clients, Adams said that he is “not at liberty to share about ongoing or potential work with other clients.”)

In an interview, Wurz told Popular Information that Adams’ presentation was “amateurish,” “horrible,” and reflected “a total lack of preparation.” Wurz was particularly disturbed that Adams has already billed the district $7500 — the cost of 60 hours of work under the contract — to craft his recommendations.

Adams, who appears to have deleted his LinkedIn profile, does not hold any degrees in education. In 2013, Adams received a bachelor’s degree in political science from Hillsdale College, a private Christian institution known for its right-wing ideology. In 2016, Adams received a master’s degree in humanities from the University of Dallas, another private conservative school. Adams later returned to Hillsdale College as an employee, where he promoted a K-12 curriculum developed by the college, known as the 1776 curriculum, that is favored by right-wing activists…

The contract was added to the agenda less than 48 hours before the meeting by board member Jordan Blomgren. It drew immediate objections from Superintendent David Bolton. In an email, Bolton noted that there was no money budgeted for the contract, no one from the school district had reviewed the contract, and no one involved in developing the curriculum for Pennridge schools was consulted. Bolton’s concerns were ignored by a majority of the board, who voted to approve the contract on a 5-4 vote.

Dissident board members fear that Adams has been hired to implant the “Hillsdale curriculum” into their schools, without the involvement of the district’s professional staff.

Categories Curriculum, Disruption, Education Industry, Pennsylvania, Teaching

Florida: Stand Up to the Big Bully Ron DeSantis!

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2023 //
20

I had the pleasure of speaking by Zoom to a meeting of the Pastors for Florida Children. The event was reported by Baptist Global News.

The morning session was also addressed by Baptist minister and retired Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen. Although we have never met, our messages were in synch: Do not let the authoritarian Governor Ron DeSantis intimidate you!

Baptist minister and retired Arkansas judge Wendell Griffen stood before an audience of faith leaders and education advocates in Tallahassee, Fla., March 9, pointed to his lapel and dared Gov. Ron DeSantis to have him apprehended for being politically and racially aware.

“I wore a ‘woke’ button on purpose. I want to get arrested for being woke. I plead guilty to being woke. I want to be convicted of being woke,” Griffen said during a prayer breakfast sponsored by Pastors for Florida Children.

Wendell Griffen

Griffen, a BNG columnist and pastor of New Millennium Church in Little Rock, urged the in-person and virtual interfaith and multiracial audience to be equally defiant of Florida’s political leaders. “Be a community of prophets but teach as one and correct, confront, organize, interact, defy, dissent, disrupt.”

Jewish, Christian and Muslim participants who prayed ahead of the speeches by Griffen and education historian Diane Ravitch focused on DeSantis’ prohibition of books that teach about racial injustice and inclusion….

Please open the link and read his bold, wise, and brave advice.

Ravitch opened with a double-barreled barrage at DeSantis’ efforts to dismantle freedom of inquiry in public schools.

“I write a daily blog, and I find that it’s being overwhelmed by the bad news from Florida,” she said. “There doesn’t seem to be anything good coming from your elected officials. If anything, it seems to be building a more and more authoritarian empire to control the thinking of everybody in the state.”

She said DeSantis seems to be going out of his way to disprove Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous saying that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

“Your governor and your legislature are trying to flatten that arc so that it does not bend
towards justice,” she declared.

Current political events in Florida do not impact public schools alone, Ravitch said. “Florida today is at the very apex of a movement to turn the clock back a century, to turn the clock back on religious freedom, on racial justice and on all the evolution we have experienced over this past century to make ours a more just society. Your governor is creating a model of thought control and calling it freedom. Every time I see him standing in front of a banner that says ‘freedom,’ I’m reminded of George Orwell’s 1984, where freedom equals slavery.”

The conservative attack on the concept of “woke” is another sign of burgeoning authoritarianism, she said.

“We have to redeem that word. It means being awake — awake to injustice, awake to history, awake to all the things that are wrong in our society and that have been wrong over the centuries. And his (DeSantis’) idea of woke is simply to eliminate critical thinking about history and even knowledge of history. And this is very dangerous.”

And that’s only the beginning.

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Democracy, DeSantis, Disruption, Education Industry, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Florida, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Gender, History, Injustice, Lies, Racism, Resistance, Supporting public schools, Teaching

Teachers: Would Your District or State Allow You to Teach Ken Burns’ Series on the Holocaust?

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2022 //
25

I recently posted a commentary by John Thompson, a retired teacher in Oklahoma who speculated about whether the state would permit high school teachers to teach Ken Burns’ series on the U.S. and the Holocaust. Oklahoma has a law—HB 1775–which might intimidate teachers.

In response, a teacher in Utah said that he or she felt sure that the Burns’ series would not be allowed because it’s controversial.

Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post was taken aback by this intimidation. She asked me to invite teachers to send her an email and comment on whether they felt they would be in jeopardy if they taught the Ken Burns’ series, which acknowledges the unwillingness of the U.S. government to accept European Jews trying to flee from Hitler.

Please write her at Valerie.Strauss@WashPost.com.

She will protect your anonymity.

Categories Academic Freedom, Censorship, Democracy, History, Teaching

Please Watch “Abbott Elementary”

By dianeravitch
September 29, 2022 //
12

I don’t usually get enthusiastic about fictionalized portrayals of schools because they are typically sensationalized and hostile towards teachers and students. It’s easy to make a long list of such movies or TV programs, starting with “Blackboard Jungle.”

But wait!

Here’s a show you will love: “Abbott Elementary” is set in Philadelphia. The writer of the Emmy-award-winning show, Quinta Brunson, is also the star. She plays a first-year teacher in the first season. She is thrilled to be a teacher and her colleagues are helpful, funny, and the usual mix of personalities—real people. They care about the children. The children—all Black—are adorable. There’s not enough money for supplies, but everyone makes do. The spirit of the show is beautiful.

The show makes you feel like teaching is the very best job in the world. Don’t miss it!

Categories Education Reform, Humor, Media, Philadelphia, Teaching

Kindergarten Teacher Explains Things to TFG

By dianeravitch
August 2, 2022 //
3

In case you didn’t know, TFG IS The Former Guy.

This kindergarten teacher explains to him why you must not take things home that do not belong to you.

No one can explain better than a teacher!

Categories Humor, Teaching, Trump
« Older Entries