Andrea Gabor is a friend and a wise writer about education.

She sent the following appeal:

Dear Friends,

First and foremost, I hope this note finds you safe and healthy.

As many of you know, I was supposed to lead another student, political-reporting trip this spring, this time to the Texas border; Covid19 foiled our travel plans and, instead, my students produced a fabulous pack of articles on life and politics on the Texas border amid the pandemic, reporting remotely from NYC. (I’ve included a link below.) Among other things, my students found that gerrymandering and voter suppression have turned Texas into one of the nation’s leading “no-vote” states.

During this time of national crisis, changing leadership in Washington alone is not enough. Fixing our political system requires change at every level of government, especially state government. Given what I learned about Texas as a result of my students’ reporting, I’ve decided to support the vigorous grassroots efforts to flip the Texas State House and hope you will help.

Please join me in supporting Elizabeth Beck for Texas State House District 97.

Elizabeth is a mother, veteran, and lawyer, who is running to represent Tarrant County, near Fort Worth. Her roots in the area go all the way to elementary school. She remains an active member of the local community, serving on boards for Congregation Beth-El and Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Fort Worth. She works to get women elected across the state through organizations like Annie’s List, and regularly lends her time to voter protection efforts for local, state, and national elections.

Join us and Elizabeth via Zoom on Wednesday, June 24, from 5:30 to 6:30 PM (EDT)

Elizabeth will be joined by two exciting special guests to share what is at stake in these elections:
· Beto O’Rourke, former United States Representative (TX-16)
· Rep. Ana-Maria Ramos, NY4US alum and Member of the Texas House of Representatives (TX-102)

Click here to donate and RSVP. The first $15,000 we raise will be matched by supporters on the ground in Fort Worth! Those who donate will receive a link to join the video call.

Even if you cannot attend, please consider donating to help support Elizabeth and give her the resources she needs to spread her message and reach voters.

FYI, here’s a link to my students’ fabulous Border package: https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/border2020/

Thanks,

Andrea

Andrea Gabor
Bloomberg Chair of Business Journalism
Baruch College/CUNY
After the Education Wars (The New Press, June 2018)
http://www.andreagabor.com
917 685 7666

Peter Greene knows, as do we, that the tech industry has stolen and misused the term “personalized learning,” which to them means a student in front of a computer that holds his or her data.

In this post, he reimagines a future of genuine personalized learning, in which there are small classes and one to one instruction.

But what if we reclaimed the term “personalized education”? What if we decided that the key to personalized learning is not computers, but human beings? Could we meet the needs of students and the recommendations of the CDC? Let’s play the reimagining education game. What could actual personalized education look like?

To really personalize education, you need to provide more time and opportunity for teachers and individual students to interact. There are many ways we could do this, but let’s try this—split the school day in half and have teachers spend half the day teaching class, and half the day in conference with individual students. Reduce class size to a maximum of fifteen; that will allow teachers to get to know students better, sooner, and will also make it easier to do social distancing within the classroom. It retains class meetings, which provide the invaluable opportunity for learning to occur as part of a community of learners.

Can we afford it? Of course we can, if educating the future is a priority. If the president persuaded Congress that we had to make war, Congress would write in the numbers on a blank check.A trillion? No problem.

Our children? No problem.

Oppose any cuts. Education needs huge increases to keep our students and teachers and staff safe. We should spend whatever is necessary to protect them and our future.

I recently read Pawan Dhingra’s new book Hyper Education, which explores the competitiveness that some parents feel about their children’s schooling and their fear that their children might be “falling behind.” This pressure, as many here have noted, makes children feel stressed out and deprives them of imaginative and creative activities. I invited Professor Dhingra to write a précis of his book for readers of the blog, and he kindly obliged.

Hyper Education and The Attack on Public Schools

Attacks on the public school take many forms, some of them even outside of the school system. For-profit tutoring centers like Kumon, Mathnasium, etc. have a role to play in educating children. But how big of a role and how much they should be supported by our federal government – that’s a different question. They have become some of the fastest growing companies in the country and show no sign of slowing down, especially under Covid, with significant implications for our public schools.

While one might imagine that it’s mostly children in learning centers who need support catching up to grade level, more and more it is children in higher-income families looking to get ahead. For my new book, Hyper Education: Why Good Schools, Good Grades, and Good Behavior Are Not Enough, I spent time with many parents, educators, learning center directors, children, and more around the pursuit of education outside of school.

Due to people like Bill Gates, parents are told that their schools are failing their children and cannot be trusted. As parents seek external for-profit learning options in response, it erodes the centrality of the public school. Even if we could get equal funding for our schools and avoid budget cuts, we would find growing educational inequality as some families afford to take advantage of these options.

Teachers see the effects in their classrooms of extracurricular academics. A third-grade teacher sees stressed and anxious children who are, “not talking. Being almost non-verbal. Overreacting to a small problem.” A health educator told me, “The thing that breaks my heart – because I’m an educator, I love to learn – is when I talked to high school students about what do you like about school. [They] respond, ‘Nothing. I hate it.’”

It is not only students who can suffer. Children in the classroom who have been exposed to such different amounts of knowledge complicates the entire teaching effort. Parents start to disrespect how much their kids are getting from school. A second-grade teacher was frustrated with the lack of appreciation. “I think if parents come one day, they would go, ‘Those teachers deserve a medal! How do they do it every day?’ And we do.”

I am not against students pursuing academics outside of school, and in fact I think it can be a wonderful thing for children depending on their interests, other commitments, and family atmosphere. But what we are seeing is a new normal in education that is prone to grow under Covid as parents wonder about their schools’ academic content. We need to understand what is motivating parents to seek extra learning, how the children feel, and hear from teachers. But right now, these voices are talking past one another. Only then can we work towards a school system that values compassion, solidarity, and equity.

Pawan Dhingra is a professor Of American Studies at Amherst College with over 20 years of teaching experience. His most recent book is Hyper Education: Why Good Schools, Good Grades, and Good Behavior Are Not Enough. He can be reached at pdhingra@amherst.edu. You can learn more at http://www.pawanhdhingra.com and follow him @phdhingra1

FairTest has been battling the abuse, misuse, and overuse of standardized testing since the early 1970s. It took a global pandemic to demonstrate that students applying to college need not take a standardized test for admission. How will colleges decide whom to admit? They will figure it out. Just watch. Many colleges and universities went test-optional years ago and managed to choose their first-year class.

MORE THAN HALF OF ALL U.S. FOUR-YEARS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WILL BE TEST-OPTIONAL FOR FALL 2021 ADMISSION;

SHARP INCREASE IN SCHOOLS DROPPING ACT/SAT DRIVES TOTAL TO 1,240

A new tally of higher education testing policies shows that more than half of all 4-year colleges and universities will not require applicants to submit ACT or SAT scores for fall 2021 admission. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), which maintains a master list, reports that 1,240 institutions are now test-optional. The National Center for Educational Statistics counted 2,330 U.S. bachelor-degree granting schools during the 2018-2019 academic year.

Fully 85% of the U.S. News “Top 100” national liberal arts colleges now have ACT/SAT-optional policies in place, according to a FairTest data table. So do 60 of the “Top 100” national universities, including such recent additions as Brown, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, UPenn, Virginia, Washington University in St. Louis, and Yale.

Bob Schaeffer, FairTest’s interim Executive Director, explained, “The test-optional admissions was growing rapidly before the COVID-19 pandemic. 2019 was the best year ever with 51 more schools dropping ACT/SAT requirements, driving the total to 1,040. Another 21 colleges and universities followed suit in the first 10 weeks of this year. Since mid-March, however, the strong ACT/SAT-optional wave became a tsunami.” FairTest has led the test-optional movement since the late-1980s when standardized exams were required by all but a handful of schools.

A FairTest chronology shows that nearly 200 additional colleges and universities have gone test-optional so far this spring. All told, U.S. News now lists more than 540 test-optional schools in the first tier of their respective classifications, including public university systems in California, Delaware, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington State.

“We are especially pleased to see many public universities and access-oriented private colleges deciding that test scores are not needed to make sound admissions decisions,” Schaeffer continued. “By going test-optional, all types of schools can increase diversity without any loss of academic quality. Eliminating ACT/SAT requirements is a ‘win-win’ for students and schools.”

New Tally – Majority of Colleges Are ACT/SAT-Optional for 2021

Schaeffer also noted that interest in FairTest’s web directory has spiked over the past three months, “Daily visitor levels have nearly tripled, demonstrating the appeal of test-optional admissions to teenagers, who know that these schools will treat them as more than a score.”
– – 3 0 – –
– FairTest’s frequently updated directory of test-optional, 4-year schools is available free online at https://www.fairtest.org/university/optional — sort geographically by clicking on “State”

– A current chronology of schools dropping ACT/SAT requirements is at http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Optional-Growth-Chronology.pdf

– The list of test-optional schools ranked in the top tiers by U.S. News & World Report is posted at http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/Optional-Schools-in-U.S.News-Top-Tiers.pdf

Thanks to a complete absence of national leadership in the United States, the coronavirus is spreading. Other countries have shut it down. Not us! We are free to get diseased!

Dana Milbank writes here about what happens when a nation has leadership and what happens when it does not.


How nice it would be to be in Tokyo today.
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government moved to its last stage of reopening on Thursday, allowing bars, amusement parks and karaoke joints to operate. The city of 14 million, in a metropolitan area of 38 million, has averaged just 18 new cases of covid-19 per day, most of which the government efficiently traces to known cases.

How nice it would be to be in Auckland today.
New Zealand has suspended social distancing and has lifted limits on public gatherings, after it declared the virus eradicated for now; Australia is close behind.

How nice it would be to be in Paris or Berlin.
On Monday, France and Germany, enjoying low levels of the virus, opened up to travelers from within the European Union. German tourist attractions reopened, and Paris reopened restaurants. French President Emmanuel Macron said it’s time to “rediscover our taste for freedom.” But U.S. visitors won’t be allowed.

And how nice it would be to be in Athens.
Greece on Monday was set to welcome visitors from such nations as China, Japan, Israel, Australia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and North Macedonia because those countries have the virus in check. The virus-laden United States didn’t make the cut.

The world is reopening, safely in many places, because responsible governments made the right decisions about the pandemic. Life there is slowly returning to normal.

And then, there is the United States. We just regained our worldwide lead in reported new cases, passing Brazil, with nearly 24,000 per day. USA! USA! We have had a world-leading 2.1 million infected and 116,000 dead. Much of the world doesn’t want America’s infected hordes traveling there.

Who can blame them? Other governments took the pandemic seriously and responded competently. Ours didn’t, and doesn’t. The willy-nilly reopening here, with safety requirements ignored and inadequate contact tracing, has allowed the virus to spread in much of the country, particularly in states that were most reckless in their reopenings.

And President Trump undermines what few restraints there are, scheduling mass rallies, beginning with an indoor event this week in Tulsa against the pleading of the local health director. Trump won’t “give the press the pleasure” of wearing a mask (one of the most important factors in safe reopening), which ensures many of his supporters won’t, either.

The effects of the careless reopening are now becoming clear. Health-care investment-research firm Nephron, in a report Sunday, finds that the quartile of states that opened earliest has seen a 26 percent increase in cases, while the second-fastest quartile has seen a 7 percent increase. The third and fourth quartiles went down, 31 percent and 9 percent, respectively. “It is patently obvious that states that removed stay-at-home restrictions earlier are seeing worse trends in case growth this month,” Nephron concluded.

Among the 14 earliest states, many of which ignored public health recommendations, nine have seen increases: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Montana, Idaho and Alaska. In the second group, Arizona, California and North Carolina are particularly alarming.

In an interview with Britain’s Telegraph newspaper, top U.S. infectious-disease official Anthony Fauci said it’s an open question whether states will “have the capability to do the appropriate and effective isolation, and contact tracing, to prevent this increase from becoming a full-blown outbreak.” But The Post reports that contact tracing efforts are “way behind” in many hard-hit areas. And yet the reopening keeps expanding — sporting events, conventions, concerts — regardless of the growing threat.

It didn’t have to be this way. Japan, where subways are busy and nightclubs are hopping, benefits from a culture that embraces mask-wearing. Virus-free New Zealand, with back-to-normal sporting events and concerts, benefits from being an island nation. But what about Tunisia, Morocco, Chad, Dominica, Barbados, Uruguay, Cambodia, Thailand, Montenegro, Croatia, Fiji, Iceland and Australia? They’re also on the list of the 15 countries that a German data analysis company, Iunera, identified as being “on a successful path to recovery.” South Korea, the Czech Republic and others have also done well. Is America not as “great” as them?

“It’s just political will,” Andy Slavitt, a top health-care official in the Obama administration, told me Monday. “Are you willing to suffer short-term pain for a lot of long-term gain? Obviously, the president wasn’t.” The behavior of Trump, and of like-minded governors operating with his encouragement, is self-defeating, for it delays the restoration of commerce and the return to normal that countries around the world are now savoring.

The United States, long the envy of the world, now fumbles while others move ahead. A president who promised to put “America First” instead put us at the back of the line.

Politico reports that the Federal Drug Administration has withdrawn authorization for emergency use of a drugs repeatedly endorsed by Trump. Based on various trials, the FDA concluded that the drug is not effective at preventing the coronavirus nor is it effective as a treatment for the virus.

Trump recently claimed that he was taking the drug himself. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she worried that it was a dangerous drug for a man in his age group who is “morbidly obese.” It’s not clear whether he was actually taking the drug or just prevaricating.

In a stunning surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT workers are protected by the Civil Rights Act. In the biggest surprise, the decision was 6-3 and was written by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch.

What a nice surprise for Pride Month!

Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The case concerned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. The question for the justices was whether that last prohibition — discrimination “because of sex”— applies to many millions of gay and transgender workers.

The decision, covering two cases, was the court’s first on L.G.B.T. rights since the retirement in 2018 of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights decisions.

Those decisions were grounded in constitutional law. The new cases, by contrast, concerned statutory interpretation.

Lawyers for employers and the Trump administration argued that the common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964 was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, they said, it could pass a new law.

Lawyers for the workers responded that discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status must as a matter of logic take account of sex.

The court considered two sets of cases. The first concerned a pair of lawsuits from gay men who said they were fired because of their sexual orientation. The second was about a suit from a transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, who said her employer fired her when she announced that she would embrace her gender identity at work.

The cases concerning gay rights are Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., No. 17-1618, and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623.

The first case was filed by Gerald Bostock, a gay man who was fired from a government program that helped neglected and abused children in Clayton County, Ga., just south of Atlanta, after he joined a gay softball league.

The second was brought by a skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who also said he was fired because he was gay. His dismissal followed a complaint from a female customer who had expressed concerns about being strapped to Mr. Zarda during a tandem dive. Mr. Zarda, hoping to reassure the customer, told her that he was “100 percent gay.”

Mr. Zarda died in a 2014 skydiving accident, and his estate pursued his case.

Most federal appeals courts have interpreted Title VII to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, have ruled that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.

In 2018, a divided 13-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, allowed Mr. Zarda’s lawsuit to proceed. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

Erica L. Green of the New York Times wrote a detailed expose of charter schools, some with the backing of billionaire donors like Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, that have sought and received federal coronavirus aid intended for small businesses. Thus, they collect funding as “public schools,” yet collect federal aid as small businesses. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that charter schools, at least in Texas, already have more funding than public schools. The Bullis School, mentioned in the article, pleads poverty and need, but local public school parents and the local school board have long complained that the charter operates as an exclusive publicly-funded private school for rich families in Los Altos, California, who each contribute $5,000 to subsidize the school. Excellent investigative reporting by Erica Green.
Kudos to Marla Kilfoyle, grassroots coordinator for the Network for Public Education (veteran teacher and former national Director of the BATS), who scoured board minutes of charters to compile a partial list of those that took PPP funding meant for small businesses. The Trump administration refuses to release the names of recipients of coronacmvirus funding.

Green writes:

WASHINGTON — Charter schools, including some with healthy cash balances and billionaire backers like Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, have quietly accepted millions of dollars in emergency coronavirus relief from a fund created to help struggling small businesses stay afloat.

Since their inception, charter schools have straddled the line between public schools and private entities. The coronavirus has forced them to choose.

And dozens of them — potentially more because the Treasury Department has not disclosed a list — have decided for the purpose of coronavirus relief that they are businesses, applying for aid even as they continue to enjoy funding from school budgets, tax-free status and, in some cases, healthy cash balances and the support of billionaire backers.

That has let them tap the Paycheck Protection Program, which Congress intended to keep businesses and nonprofits from shedding jobs and closing their doors. Parents, activists and researchers have identified at least $50 million in forgivable loans flowing to the schools, which, like all schools, are facing steep budget cuts next year as tax revenue, tuition payments and donations dry up.

“To me, either you’re a fish or a fowl — you can’t say you’re a public school one day, but now because it’s advantageous, say you’re a business,” said Carol Burris, the executive director of the Network for Public Education, a group that scrutinizes charter school management, and whose early donors included a teachers’ union.

The group identified at least $48 million in funds from the Paycheck Protection Program going to 27 charter schools across the country by watching virtual school board meetings and poring over meeting minutes and news reports, which were also reviewed by The New York Times.

“They’re saying they want this money to protect their fund balance when you have people in soup lines,” Ms. Burris said.

To charter school critics like Ms. Burris, the bailout underscores the long-held sense that charter schools do not play by the same rules that apply to their conventional public school counterparts.

Charter leaders say traditional schools have long benefited from capital that they cannot obtain.

“Those who are questioning our eligibility for this program are those who question whether we should get money at all,” said Nina Rees, the president and chief executive of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

But privately, the charters have been girding for a public-relations nightmare.

Blake Warner, a board member of Summit Public Schools, a charter chain on the West Coast, said during a virtual board meeting last month that he did not know how taking the Paycheck Protection Program loan would affect the schools’ position in the “charter school versus not-charter school war being waged in California.”

“But I do think that since P.R. is 90 percent of the issue, that is a pretty significant consideration,” he said.

Mr. Warner also expressed concern that the schools could face criminal penalties for claiming they faced “economic uncertainty.”

“If there is a risk that we run, it is the cash balances that sit on our balance sheet today, with the benefit of hindsight, somebody coming in and saying, ‘You didn’t need it,’” he said.

Elite private schools have already faced criticism for taking the coronavirus relief loans. But private schools were largely shut out of emergency aid, and their revenue streams, such as tuition, donations and endowments, are shrinking. Dozens of private schools have already announced closings related to or caused by the coronavirus crisis.

Charter schools are different. Although they are independently run, they operate as part of local school districts, do not charge tuition and are open to all students, albeit through lotteries. Like traditional public schools, they generally receive per-pupil funding from their districts, and as such, they were eligible to receive a share of billions of dollars in relief that Congress allocated to public education.

But because a vast majority are run by nonprofit companies, they also qualified for the Paycheck Protection Program.

Charter recipients of the forgivable loans include wealthy networks like Summit, whose most recent tax filings show it had assets totaling $43 million and an endowment, and it paid its chief executive nearly $500,000. The charter network receives donations from the philanthropic organizations of Mr. Bloomberg and Bill and Melinda Gates, and the Bezos Family Foundation. And its business-savvy California board of directors includes Meg Whitman, the chief executive of Quibi and former chief executive of eBay.

In many cases, charter school leaders have openly acknowledged that they did not apply for the funds because they were in dire financial straits. The board chairman of one Oakland, Calif., charter school network, Education for Change Public Schools, said its $5 million loan would be a “cheap form of cash-flow financing.”

In North Carolina, the founding board member of one charter school, Pine Springs Preparatory Academy, told Ms. Burris that it was “like a private school for wealthy kids” — it accepted $550,000. In Washington, D.C., several charter schools have refused to say whether they took the loans. One San Diego charter was awarded a $2.25 million loan in May, then laid off a third of its teachers. One of the terms of the program is the loans convert to grants if recipients retain or rehire employees.

Parents and researchers in Oakland have tracked about $19 million awarded to charters in the Oakland Unified School District. A report released Monday by In the Public Interest, a policy and research group that scrutinizes the privatization of public goods, found that 70 percent of the district’s 43 charter schools had accepted the funding. Combined with federal relief funds available to all public schools, the report says, the district’s charter schools would receive at least $23 million in federal funding, which breaks down to an average of nearly $2,000 more per student than traditional schools.

“We have money for small businesses, we have money for schools. And when they’re using both of these sources for the same need, it’s doing a real disservice to the community,” said Clare Crawford, a senior policy adviser at the research group.

The report was done in partnership with a parent group, Parents United for Public Schools, whose members aggressively tracked the Paycheck Protection Program funds. The group’s co-founder, Kim Davis, came across the charter funding by accident while on a charter school meeting held on Zoom, and said she was “stunned.”

“Virtually all families in Oakland are doing GoFundMe because someone lost their job, and in part, it’s because their business did layoffs and didn’t have P.P.P.,” Ms. Davis said.

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools lobbied hard to ensure Congress included the schools in the program, in part because charters schools in several states are not guaranteed district-level funding, let alone the $13.5 billion in emergency funds that Congress gave states wide discretion over….

Francis La Poll, the chairman of the board at Bullis Charter School in Silicon Valley, said that his school took a $2 million loan to help mitigate the impact of an anticipated 8 percent cut in state funding.

The school receives about $5,000 less per student than traditional schools, which its foundation, a separate entity, seeks to make up by asking parents to voluntarily donate $5,000 per year. Mr. La Poll said he turned to the program after the school’s foundation; Bullis had to cancel some upcoming fund-raisers because of the pandemic, and banks were reluctant to lend to the school because of the pandemic, and banks were reluctant to lend to the school because it did not have a history of borrowing.

“Charter school teachers are teachers, too,” Mr. La Poll said. “Are they not to be protected? Are they not part of the economy?”

But behind that certainty has been soul-searching. Summit’s chief executive, Diane Tavenner, brushed away several concerns at the May meeting, including “public shaming.” She urged the board to take the funds, saying that “the benefits far outweigh the risks.”

The board ultimately accepted the loan, identified only as more than $2 million because it is subject to audit, at its May 18 meeting. By that time, Ms. Tavenner said the money had come in, and with the recent announcement from Gov. Gavin Newsom of California of 10 percent budget cuts next year, “further bolsters our case, as a nonprofit that’s operating schools, of our economic uncertainty.”

She said the board could respond to critics by asserting that traditional schools have “always had access to resources that we’ve never had, and so this is our version of those resources that will create a bit of a level playing field.”

A spokeswoman declined to divulge the amount of the loan, but said Summit “met the requirements for the program, applied for the program, qualified for the program and accepted the loan award.”

When board members at Education for Change Public Schools, which runs seven schools in Oakland, debated whether to accept their $5.25 million P.P.P. loan last month, Mike Barr, a board member, warned that the organization could not “double-dip.” It would have to “treat this as a loan” and not cash that could not be used to pay teachers more or plug budget gaps, he said.

That was when the organization’s board chairman, Nick Driver, said the loan could be a “cheap form of cash-flow financing,” because it was low interest, according to a recording of the meeting reviewed by The Times. He also raised an “optics issue,” where “anti-charter folks are making this about charter schools getting money from the federal government when they’re not getting any.”

“I freaking welcome that conversation,” Mr. Barr replied.

In an interview, Hae-Sin Thomas, the chief executive of Education for Change, said the loan would be used by the school — where 90 percent of students come from low-income families — to support students whose families have been hit hardest by the virus.

The network is facing a $4 million cut in state funding, and the staff members who are at risk of being laid off are the ones “doing the hard work of managing the 5-year-old temper tantrums, the 8-year-old who is having a hard day and storms out of class,” Ms. Thomas said.

“Every dollar that I can legally get to ensure stability for my community, I would be hard-pressed not to take,” she said. “It’s going to be a rough fall.”

The board of The Learning Community, a public charter school in Rhode Island, “struggled mightily” with its decision to turn down a $1.3 million loan, said Sarah Friedman, the school’s co-director.

The school faces “tremendous needs,” she said, with 84 percent of its students qualifying for subsidized meals and 100 percent coming from the communities hit hardest by Covid-19.

“While we are technically a nonprofit, our primary identity, mission and value is as a public school,” Ms. Friedman said. “We believe that we need to stand with all public schools in demanding the financial support, during and after this crisis, to meet the staffing and facilities needs to give all of the state’s children the safe and high-quality education they deserve.”

Bad news for the College Board, which owns the SAT. Yale University is going test-optional for the class entering in fall 2021.

Today Yale became the fifth Ivy League school to adopt a test-optional policy for the class of undergraduates who will be applying for admission in the fall of 2021. It joins Cornell, Columbia, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania who have also announced they would not require either the SAT or ACT for their Class of 2025 undergraduate applicants.

According to a statement on Yale’s website, students who can’t take exams or who decide not to report scores “will not be disadvantaged in the selection process.”

After infection risk from the coronavirus forced the College Board, the nonprofit that administers the SAT, to cancel multiple test dates this spring, schools started announcing test-optional admissions policies. One hundred eighty have done so since the pandemic hit, according to Bob Schaeffer of FairTest, a nonprofit that opposes the use of standardized tests in admissions. That brings the total number of test-optional schools to 1,244. (FairTest keeps a database of test-optional schools.)

It’s not clear whether these policies will survive the pandemic. But who knows?

John Thompson is a retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma. He writes here about the resumption of Trump’s big political rallies, beginning in Tulsa. The attendees will have to sign a waiver releasing the campaign of any liability if they fall sick with COVID.

Will Trump promote the disease amongst his enthusiastic base? He won’t wear a mask. To show their macho, his followers will copy him, in defiance of CDC guidelines. Why would Trump want to sicken and/or kill his own base? Will he tell them that the coronavirus is a hoax? Or will he spend his hour ridiculing Biden, Romney, Democrats, and his other enemies?

The headline which should have drawn Oklahomans’ attention was “OMRF: Virus Likely to Remain in Circulation for Decades.” The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation President Stephen Prescott expressed skepticism that a COVID-19 vaccine will “wipe out the virus,” because many Americans “don’t vaccinate because they don’t believe in it or don’t trust a new vaccine.” The news article cited a recent survey of Oklahomans which found that only 55% of those polled would get a coronavirus vaccine. It then cited Washington Post which “found that only 7 in 10 Americans were interested in getting vaccinated.”

The top headlines, however, were about President Donald Trump’s Tulsa rally, originally scheduled on Juneteenth, and how he wants large crowds of people not wearing masks. Not only was he denigrating the historic celebration of the day when slaves in the Southwest learned of their emancipation, but he was doing so on the 99th anniversary of the Tulsa Massacre, where about 300 African-Americans were murdered. And it’s only been four years since Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man, was fatally shot by a white Tulsa police officer, who escaped a criminal conviction, and was later hired as a deputy sheriff in a neighboring county.

These and the other awful headlines of the week are due to decades-old mindsets, featuring anti-intellectualism, paranoia, and racism. They are also legacies of years of rightwing lobbying. For instance, the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC) compared Republican Senator Ervin Yen, a physician who sought to limit vaccination exemptions, to Hitler, Mao and Mussolini.

And their destructive propaganda crossed the tipping point during the Trump administration.

We’ve long heard anti-vaccination spin. But Oklahoma now has an anti-vaxxer, a Trump acolyte, as governor. When the Daily Beast quoted Gov. Kevin Stitt’s own words, he tried to back off from his message to the OCPAC. However, Oklahoma Watch reporting served as a reminder of the anti-vaccination, “pro-choice” mindset’s enduring power. His kids attended a private school where 24% received exemptions.

The Trumpers’ destructive ideologies are especially frightening due to the way they pressured local leaders, forcing an abandonment of the science-based policies that were working against the virus. Stitt first posted a photo with his kids eating at a crowded restaurant, and tried to maintain “business as usual,” which meant that Oklahoma was one of the last two states in the nation to do so.

The OCPAC and the Stitt administration pushed policies that could require workers to choose between their health and their income. They also used the pandemic as an opportunity to try to restrict abortion rights, stop Medicaid expansion, and expand vouchers, as well as ridicule medical “experts” who supported Black Lives Matter while urging social distancing.

Even after an Oklahoma City McDonald’s customer shot two employees after being asked to leave because she wouldn’t wear a mask, Stitt signed an anti-Red Flag law to prevent municipalities from passing ordinances that “could restrict gun access to an individual deemed to be an imminent danger.”

In other words, it is no surprise that Trump’s rally is scheduled for a place where the groundwork has long been laid for his hate speech and cruelty. But, in March and April, it looked like enlightened, bipartisan leadership was flattening the COVID-19 curve, especially in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman; in fact, Oklahoma City’s infection rate remained flat until the forced reopening was implemented, and Norman’s progress is continuing.

Moreover, during the Oklahoma City marches for George Floyd, even after Stitt inappropriately sent in the National Guard, Black Lives Matter and municipal leaders continued to communicate, preventing serious violence.

My sense is that Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum is like Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt (and our former Police Chief Bill Citty) in trying to reform our reactionary law enforcement cultures. But they are facing intractable problems and a determined rightwing assault. Bynum recently blamed the murder of Terence Crutcher on the “insidious nature of drug utilization” rather than racism. I suspect we saw his true beliefs when Bynum subsequently apologized.

Also, its my understanding that there would be legal complexities, as well as political threats, that make an Oklahoma mayor’s authority complicated. But, how could any mayor not publicly resist the dangerous Trump rally? Couldn’t he at least join the Tulsa Health Department’s Dr. Bruce Dart in calling for a postponement until after the city’s current surge in infections is under control?

The systemic problem was exemplified by Tulsa Police Maj. Travis Yates who “denied systemic racism exists in the Tulsa Police Department, adding, ‘By the way, all the research on this says … we’re shooting African Americans about 24% less than we probably ought to base on the crimes being committed.’”

Worse, the OCPAC’s “Government Unions Kill George Floyd” illustrates the way that Trump supporters are doubling down on their agenda. It explained:

A government union isn’t the only thing that attacked Floyd. News reports note that due to government shutdowns associated with COVID-19, Floyd was hurled into unemployment with millions of Americans who became unemployed because of government’s overreach and government’s shutdowns of nonessential businesses.

Who knows how big of a symbolic victory it was when Trump’s rally date was moved to June 20? Just a few months ago, I was repeatedly, thrilled that municipal leaders quickly ordered shelter-at-home. I was even more pleasantly surprised when the public supported those policies. Similarly, when attending a major Black Lives Rally, I was stunned by the size of the crowds walking such large distances after finally finding parking spots. Even though concerns about social distancing have reduced the size of subsequent crowds, these multi-racial, cross-generational protests persist.

Yes, the ideologues’ agenda have exposed us to even more danger, driving a new COVID-19 surge. But we’re finally tackling structural injustices, as well as Trump’s antics.