There is a sort of hysteria about transgender people that has gripped the minds of (mostly) Republican legislators. They claim that teachers are “grooming” children to be gay or transgender. We used to think of the word “groom” to refer to a male who was getting married and the word “grooming” as a description of one’s manner of dress (“good grooming” or “bad grooming”). Now the word has a sinister connotation, as rightwing zealots like Christopher Rufo and Moms for Liberty accuse the nation’s teachers of conspiring to turn their students gay or transgender.

The Williams Institute at the School of Law at UCLA developed an estimate of the number of transgender people in the U.S. population. The estimate is that transgender people are 0.06%, or about 1.4 million people. Unless my math is off, that is six people out of every 10,000 people identify as transgender.

I have not seen any evidence that children were turned gay or transgender because of what their teachers did in school. It seems to be a decision that is never taken easily or lightly because there is so much social opprobrium attached to being transgender.

The issue has been dormant until recently, when a transgender woman (formerly male) swimmer won national competitions. So, now, the issue has become a matter of “protecting women’s sports.” No one worries about a transgender man (formerly female) competing in men’s sports, but they believe that a transgender woman has biological advantages that make the competition unfair.

I won’t share my views because frankly I am conflicted. The only thing I can say with conviction is that a problem that affects a very tiny number of people has been cynically turned into a culture war issue.

Today is the world-famous Boston Marathon. It is a good time to remember Kathrine Switzer.

Kathrine Switzer was the first woman to enter the Boston Marathon, in 1967. She applied to run by using her initials instead of her first name.

For the previous 70 years, the famous marathon was open to male athletes only.

She ran with her coach and her boyfriend alongside her. They were both students at Syracuse University.

When race officials realized there was a woman running, they tried to drag her out of the race and rip the numbers off her back.

Her boyfriend pushed the older men out of the way, so that Kathrine could continue.

She was asked by the press, “Are you a suffragette? Are you a crusader?”

She said, “No, I am just trying to run.”

Three major religious events converge this weekend: Easter, Passover, and Ramadan.

To readers who celebrate these holy days, I send good wishes.

To those who are non-religious, I also send good wishes.

To everyone, I send my personal hope that we can share a world without war, a world of kindness, a world of plenty, a world in which we can share the bounty of a healthy earth, and a world in which everyone is respected.

Above all, in this moment, I hope that Mr. V. Putin stops his war against Ukraine. Please end the killing and destruction.

Let us together seek Peace, Joy, Freedom, Democracy, and Justice. Not just for ourselves but for everyone.

The Washington Post reports on the fierce battle for Mariupol, which has been under siege for weeks:

As Russia appears poised to capture Mariupol more than six weeks into the invasion, the governor of Ukraine’s Donetsk region said Friday that while Ukrainian troops remain in control of the strategic port city, Mariupol “has been wiped off the face of the earth” by Russian forces.

Pavlo Kyrylenko, the governor, told CNN that troops are still “courageously defending Mariupol” against the Russian forces that have bombarded the city on the Sea of Azov, leaving it in ruins.

“The enemy cannot seize Mariupol. The enemy may seize the land that Mariupol used to stand on, but the city of Mariupol is no more,” Kyrylenko said. “The city of Mariupol has been wiped off the face of the earth by the Russian Federation, by those who will never be able to restore it.”

This is barbarism.

You might think that, with teacher shortages in many districts, this would be a golden moment for Teach for America. But it is not. Gary Rubinstein, one of the original members of TFA in the early 1990s and now a career teacher in New York City, surveys the current woes of Teach for America in this post. He identifies three reasons for the downturn in TFA’s fortunes.

He begins:

Teach For America has an operating budget of $300 million. Their main responsibility is to recruit and prepare corps members to teach for a minimum of two years in low-income communities. They started in 1990 with 500 corps members. In 1991 they grew to 750 corps members. By 2005 they had 2000 corps members and they peaked in 2012 with 6000. Now, according to Chalkbeat, They are at a 17 year low, back to 2000 recruits.

Teach For America blames their recruitment woes on the pandemic, but I have been following the ups and down of this organization for over 30 years, starting when I was a corps member myself in 1991, and I have a different theory.

There are three reasons why TFA’s popularity is fading, and all three of these reasons stem from an overarching problem — arrogance. In my analysis, those three reasons are: Failure to properly train corps members, ineffective leadership, and a close alliance with a toxic and oversimplified type of education reform based on teacher bashing.

Reason #1 is: Failure to properly train corps members

Reason #2 is: Ineffective Leadership

Guess what Reason #3 is?

Stephen Sawchuk, a veteran journalist at Education Week, has compiled a summary of current legislation that would limit or eliminate any teaching that includes references to LGBT topics. Legislators seem to believe that teachers are willfully indoctrinating students to become gay, which insults teachers. Teachers have become suspects, “grooming” students for a “gay lifestyle.” Legislators apparently believe that if no one talks about people who are gay, students won’t become gay.

Sawchuk writes:

At least 15 states are considering bills in the 2021-22 legislative session that would affect ways of discussing, addressing, or interacting with LGBTQ youth in schools, according to an Education Week analysis.

The bills—nearly 30 of them in all—variously take aim at school clubs for LGBTQ students, would put limitations on teachers’ and students’ use of gender pronouns, and would restrict or proscribe curriculum, instruction, and library books that feature LGBTQ themes, an Education Week analysis finds. They are only a subset of what LGBTQ-rights organizations have described as a sudden explosion of legislation aimed at LGBTQ people in 2021 and 2022. 

Education Week’s analysis shows that, while few of the proposals have passed as legislative sessions come to a close, they often go far beyond Florida’s much-discussed recent legislation, which forbids certain topics in grades K-3.

The bills generally echo broader fears that educators are indoctrinating students in liberal ideas or about social justice. That discourse has fueled legislation aiming to curb how racism and race are discussed in classroom settings. In fact, Education Week found that many of the LGBTQ provisions are located in broader legislative packages that address those topics, or are otherwise styled as a “parent bill of rights.”

Quite a few of the laws take aim at transgender students in particular—a newer theme that has gathered steam in recent legislative cycles. In 2017, many states considered proposals to require trans students to use bathrooms and changing facilities that matched the sex on their birth certificates. In 2021 and 2022, lawmakers have considered restricting which sports teams trans women can play on.

The latest crop of proposals, say those who have studied them, reflects both old and new anxieties.

“Because of all the Zoom schooling, a lot of parents have had a peak into the classroom, and those that didn’t have read or seen reports that in some classrooms some very unorthodox, very liberal, LGBTQ+-type and other controversial position statements and lessons are being taught,” said Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, who sponsored a bill in that state that would require parents to sign off on students’ decision to join an LGBTQ club at school. “I’m not saying it’s pervasive throughout the school system, but I think a lot of parents want to be assured it’s not something their students are being exposed to, if it’s controversial to the foundational beliefs of the parents.”

But in another sense, the fear driving these is older, said Chris Sanders, the executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, which advocates for LGBTQ people in that state. He pointed to the plethora of bills that address mental health screening, social-emotional survey tools, and sex education.

“One of the old accusations against our communities, and I think this fits into this, is that mental health screenings are this tool to be used to find out who might be gay, and somehow these tools might be used to help solidify people into gender identities or sexual orientations that aren’t cisgender,” he said. “It’s the old accusation of recruiting.”

Education Week has grouped legislation into several categories.

Note: We have not included bills that would outlaw gender-affirming care for transgender people, except those that specifically implicate school personnel. We have also not included bills prohibiting trans athletes from participating on school sports teams that match their gender identity; such legislation has now been passed in 12 states and introduced in many others. We have included only curriculum-related proposals that specifically mention LGBTQ students, though other, broader proposals could also lead to censorship of books and materials with LGBTQ themes.

Curriculum and instruction

The most widely known bill on these topics is Florida’s law, which prohibits instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through 3rd grade and says in later grades, teaching must be “age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate.” The law has already been challenged in federal court. An Ohio proposal introduced this week lifts the Florida bill’s language.

Tennessee bill would prohibit schools from adopting or using textbooks or materials “that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.”

Louisiana bill would prevent any teacher or school employee from covering the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 8th grade, and it would prevent them from discussing their own orientation or gender identity as well.

An Iowa proposal would require parents to opt in in writing to “instruction relating to gender identity.”

Kansas parent-rights and curriculum transparency proposal, as introduced, would have prevented both public and private entities from using materials that included depictions of homosexuality. A substitute version eliminated that language, but still would designate some materials as recommended for parental review for their “sexual content.”

One Arizona bill would change the curriculum of sex education to “emphasize biological sex and not gender identities.” A second bill in the state would prohibit schools from giving students “sexually explicit materials.” Initially, the proposal included homosexuality in that definition, but that language was stripped out before it was passed in the House.

South Carolina bill would prohibit state entities, including schools, from subjecting minors to “instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium” that involves topics including “sexual lifestyles, acts, or practices” or “gender identity or lifestyles.”

Missouri bill would prevent public schools from requiring students to engage in “gender or sexual diversity training,” as would an Indiana bill; a South Carolina billwould extend that to teachers, staff members, and district employees. The language in these bills is identical to draft legislation prohibiting such training at the university level, which has been introduced in numerous states, but lawmakers in only these three states appear ready to extend it to K-12 education.

Gender-affirming care

Three states—Alabama, Arizona, and South Carolina—have introduced a version of legislation called the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act. Its primary focus is to outlaw gender-affirming care for minors—a spectrum of services that can include the use of drugs to delay puberty and cross-sex hormones. (Sex-reassignment surgery is exceedingly rare before age 18.)

What distinguishes this proposal from other such legislation—like Arkansas’ controversial 2021 law, which has since been challenged in federal court—is its specific mention of school district employees in the list of people prohibited from providing gender-affirming services.

It also stipulates that “no nurse, counselor, teacher, principal” at a public or private school shall “encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor’s parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor’s perception of his or her gender or sex is inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” or withhold any information related to that perception.

Student clubs

An Arizona bill would require students to get their parents’ written permission to participate in a group or club involving “sexuality, gender, or gender identity,” and allows parents to review foundational documents of any such club.

Tennessee parents’-rights proposal does not specifically reference LGBTQ clubs, but would require parents’ permission for students to participate in clubs, and would allow them to see which library books their children had checked out, among other things.

Disclosure of student pronouns/gender identity

Several proposals seek to make clear that parents have the right to determine the names and pronouns used for their child at school, or direct educators to disclose a student’s gender identity to parents.

Wisconsin proposal includes parent’s rights to choose pronouns in a larger parents’-rights piece of legislation; the bill has been approved by both chambers in the legislature but has not yet been signed into law.

An Iowa bill would require schools to give a week’s notice to parents before educators ask students which pronoun they prefer or before administering a survey on pronoun use, and to send them the response upon request.

A wide-ranging Rhode Island bill would also require children to “be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender” unless parent permission is given to change them.

An Indiana proposal would include parents’ written consent for students to receive sex education, including on “transgenderism” [sic]; it would also require parents to give consent for medical inspections or mental health treatment, including on counseling about “gender transitioning issues,” pronoun selection, and referral to other agencies that provide these services.

An Arizona parents’-rights proposal initially stated that school officials cannot “withhold or conceal,” or “facilitate, encourage, or coerce” students to conceal, a student’s gender identity or “requested transition” if it doesn’t match their biological sex. Parents also would need to consent before students are asked questions on a survey about gender expression, perception or stereotypes. Both provisions were removed before the bill advanced.

North Carolina bill, while primarily focused on outlawing gender-affirming care, would also require any state employee to report to parents if a minor has “exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity,” or “otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with their biological sex.”

Several of these proposals appear related to several lawsuits in which parents have sued school districts that have allowed students to select new names or pronouns, allegedly without the parents’ consent or knowledge.

Library materials

Two proposals in Oklahoma would submit library books to scrutiny over sexual themes; one of them specifically would prohibit public schools or libraries from holding or promoting “books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.” It would also prevent teachers from administering a survey about gender or sexuality.

Book banning and censorship is currently experiencing a boom probably not seen since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, but it is occurring primarily via local school district decision-making, not through legislation.

Teacher beliefs/use of pronouns

Several bills on this theme are derived from the Partisanship Out of Civics Act, model legislation developed by the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, a nonprofit. Its provisions include one that specifies that “no teacher shall be compelled by a policy of any state agency, school district, or school administration to affirm a belief in … the so-called multiplicity or fluidity of gender identities, or like ideas, against his or her sincerely held religious or philosophical convictions.”

The language appears in one Ohio bill and two South Carolina bills.

Tennessee bill would indemnify teachers who refused to use a student’s pronoun that is different from their biological sex. It would make them not civilly liable for doing so and shield them from penalties or firing.

The context for this legislation is a handful of lawsuits in which teachers have allegedly been disciplined for refusing to use a student’s preferred gender pronoun, or for speaking against a policy that required them to use students’ preferred pronouns. The most high-profile instance occurred in Loudoun County, Va., and ended in a settlement.

Andy Spears of the Tennessee Education Report informs his readers that the state has a budget surplus in excess of $ 2 billion. It also has public schools that are perennially underfunded. How will the state spend the surplus?

He writes:

A state with one of the lowest investments in public education in the country now has a record budget surplus. This, of course, means Tennessee could make great strides in shoring up an education budget that can best be described as severely lacking without raising taxes one dime. In fact, investing in schools with new state money would also have the added benefit of keeping local property taxes low. It’s a policymaker’s dream.

That’s why Gov. Bill Lee has announced his definitive TISA plan – Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement.

Apparently, a key element of that plan was just announced today:

While we’re on the subject, let’s examine the reality of Lee’s TISA school funding plan:

A $500 million investment in a domed stadium in Nashville for the Tennessee Titans.

Sure, that really has nothing to do with student achievement or funding schools or anything at all related to education. It does, however, continue a trend of placing just about everything else above public schools when it comes to Lee’s priorities.

First, it does nothing to shore up the shortage of teachers needed to adequately support students now. That is, according to both TACIR and the Comptroller, Tennessee districts hire MORE teachers (11,000 more, to be exact) than the current formula funds. Guess what? TISA does nothing to change that. There is no indication that the weights will mean more teachers hired and supported by state funding.

Next, TISA does nothing to boost overall teacher pay. Sure, TISA “allows” lawmakers to earmark certain funds to give raises to “existing” teachers, but that doesn’t mean they will. Nor does it mean those raises will be significant. This year’s $125 million set aside for teacher compensation will mean what is effectively a 2-3% raise for most teachers. Based on current inflation rates and rising insurance premiums, this essentially amounts to a pay cut.

While the plan doesn’t address the shortage of teachers or teacher compensation or local costs for hiring/retaining teachers, it does raise local property taxes.

Open the link and read how Governor Lee will ingeniously raise property taxes, build a shiny new domed football stadium, and shortchange the school children of Tennessee. All while sitting on a huge surplus.

Stephanie Saul is a crack investigative reporter at the New York Times. In this story, she took a close look at Tennessee Governor Bill Lee’s request to ultra conservative Hillsdale College to open 50 charter schools in Tennessee.

She begins:

With only 1,500 students on a small-town campus in southern Michigan, Hillsdale College is far from the power corridors of government and top-ranked universities.

But it has outsize influence in the conservative world, with strong ties to the Washington elite. Republican leaders frequently visit, and Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the 2016 commencement address, calling Hillsdale a “shining city on a hill” for its devotion to “liberty as an antecedent of government, not a benefit from government.”

Now the college is making new efforts to reach beyond its campus, this time with an even younger audience. The college is fighting what it calls “progressive” and “leftist academics” by expanding its footprint in the charter school world, pushing the boundaries on the use of taxpayer money for politically tinged education.

Hillsdale has ambitious plans to add to its network of classical public charter schools, which focus on “the centrality of the Western tradition.” And Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee recently invited the college to start 50 schools using public funds, including $32 million set aside for charter facilities. Hillsdale’s network currently includes 24 schools in 13 states.

Mr. Lee, a Republican, sees his new charter school expansion as part of an effort to develop what he called “informed patriotism” in Tennessee students.

“For decades, Hillsdale College has been the standard-bearer in quality curriculum and in the responsibility of preserving American liberty,” Mr. Lee told lawmakers recently. “I believe their efforts are a good fit for Tennessee.”

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, have been more commonly promoted as alternatives to low-performing schools in urban centers. In Tennessee, they have been clustered in the state’s four biggest cities, where like other charters, they have been criticized for siphoning money and students out of more traditional public schools.

Mr. Lee’s plan envisions an expansion into suburban and rural areas where, like many Hillsdale charter schools, they would most likely enroll children who are whiter and more affluent than the average charter school pupil.

In that way, the Hillsdale schools could be something of a publicly funded off-ramp for conservative parents who think their local schools misinterpret history and push a socially progressive agenda on issues from race and diversity to sexuality and gender.

The college has also developed the “1776 Curriculum,” which sets out to portray America as “an exceptionally good country.” During a time when education has become inflamed by divisive cultural debates, Hillsdale has been criticized for its glossy spin on American history as well as its ideological tilt on topics like affirmative action. Educators and historians have also raised questions about other instruction at Hillsdale’s charter schools, citing their negative take on the New Deal and the Great Society and cursory presentation of global warming.

In that way, the Hillsdale schools could be something of a publicly funded off-ramp for conservative parents who think their local schools misinterpret history and push a socially progressive agenda on issues from race and diversity to sexuality and gender.

“I’ve been following charter schools over the last 25 years, and I’ve never seen a governor attempting to use charters in such an overtly political way,” said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. “You’ve had governors who’ve encouraged the growth of charters to provide more high-quality options for parents, but it’s highly unusual to see a governor deploy the charter mechanism for admittedly political purposes.”

The article goes on at length to describe the Hillsdale curriculum, which is politically conservative , and the demographics of its charter schools, which are disproportionately white.

She adds:

The students [at Atlanta Classical Academy] are selected through a citywide lottery, but the school’s location in affluent Buckhead may deter some applicants. In a city where 73 percent of public school students are Black and 17 percent white, Atlanta Classical Academy is the mirror image: 17 percent Black and 71 percent white, according to a 2020 state report.

Overall, Hillsdale’s charter school racial demographics are close to that of the Atlanta Classical students. That is a departure from charter schools nationally, which are about 30 percent white.

“They’re catering to white families and affluent families,” said Charisse Gulosino, an associate professor of leadership and policy studies at the University of Memphis, whose research has found that students in suburban charter schools do not outperform their public school counterparts.

Not all of Hillsdale’s charter school collaborations have been successful. Hillsdale recently announced it is ending ties with Tallahassee Classical School in Florida.

The school, approved by the state despite local opposition, set out to serve a diverse student body. But two teachers interviewed by The Times said they suspected that the school was trying to jettison low-performing students, a tactic that charter schools have been accused of as a way to increase test scores.

Try to find the full story. It shows how unregulated charter schools can be turned into white flight academies teaching a Trumpian version of history and science.

Watch this short video and learn who is promoting and funding the attacks on “critical race theory.”

Very few of its critics can define CRT. Most seem to think it means teaching about racism today. They prefer to believe that racism ended with slavery. They are wrong.

Numerous states have passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory, even though they can’t define what it is.

It’s meant to squelch all teaching about racism, past and present.

P.S.: the original post had some grammatical errors. I apologize. I wrote it on my cell phone while traveling in an Amtrak train. Forgive my poor editing.

The Network for Public Education has just released a new report that ranks the states by their commitment to their public schools and their refusal to pass laws enabling privatization of public money.

Where does your state rank?

A NEW REPORT EXPOSES THE WEAK PROTECTIONS FOR TAXPAYERS AND WEAK PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN IN STATE CHARTER AND VOUCHER LAWS

America’s public schools, students, and families are under a near-constant attack from political special interests looking to privatize and profit at the expense of our children. The Network for Public Education (NPE) has released its findings in its latest report “Public Schooling in America: Measuring Each States Commitment to Democratically Governed Schools.”

Researchers examined laws and regulations in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to measure how well policymakers protect public funds from exploitative privatization through low-quality virtual and brick-and-mortar charter schools, environments without fully-vetted staff, and profit-centered systems. Most troubling were findings that expose how state laws allow charter and voucher schools to leave students behind, discriminating against the most vulnerable.

Diving into the world of school privatization led the report’s authors to some dark conclusions about the future of schooling in America. Reflecting on the school privatization movement, the report notes:

“It has achieved the full-throated support of the right-wing, which now controls many state legislatures. Conserving public schools and local control is no longer part of a conservative platform: destroying locally controlled public schools via privatized choice is.”

Some of the findings might surprise readers, as states like California lead the nation in charter school fraud.

“The reality is these voucher programs and charter school expansions being promoted in state capitols across the country are almost custom-designed to incentivize, legalize, and reward fraud, often coupled with minimal repercussions for misspending public funding meant for our students,” said Carol Burris, executive director of NPE.

The report notes that “the first step in stopping the privatization movement is to understand it.” To help the public understand the scope of the issue, NPE graded each state based on their willingness to turn public dollars over to privatized systems as well as the robustness of their protections against discrimination, fraud, student endangerment, corruption, transparency, and accountability.

At the top of the list are the schools where a commitment to conserving public schools and local control remains strong. Those states receiving an “A+” grade include Nebraska and North Dakota, where there are no voucher or charter school laws.

The details of what they found may be alarming to those working to hold states accountable to democratically governed schools. For example:

  • 50% of states with voucher programs don’t require any background checks for voucher school staff in at least one voucher program
  • 33 (73%) states don’t require charter students to be taught by certified teachers, or allow so many exceptions that any existing regulations are rendered meaningless
  • 37 states allow entirely online charter schools that have been shown to be years behind public schools in academic progress
  • 5 states have for-profit organizations running 30% or more of charter schools.

At the same time, the report is a celebration of those states like Nebraska and North Dakota that despite strong lobbying efforts continue to defend their public schools. Commenting on the highest-scoring states, NPE President Diane Ravitch said, “NPE salutes the states that have protected and cherished their public schools while fending off the siren call of privatization. They can and should build strong public schools that are open to the public and owned by the public.”

To view the full list of grades for each state and see how yours stands on protecting students and communities from the exploitation of privatization, view the report in its entirety here.

The Network for Public Education (NPE) was founded in 2013 by Diane Ravitch and Anthony Cody. Its mission is to protect, preserve, promote, and strengthen public schools for both current and future generations of students. We share information and research on vital issues that concern the future of public education. For more information, please visit: networkforpubliceducation.org