The stringent restrictions in place are “flattening the curve,” but the director of the Centers for Disease Control warned of the possibility of a new outbreak next winter.

Even as states move ahead with plans to reopen their economies, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Tuesday that a second wave of the novel coronavirus will be far more dire because it is likely to coincide with the start of flu season.

“There’s a possibility that the assault of the virus on our nation next winter will actually be even more difficult than the one we just went through,” CDC Director Robert Redfield said in an interview with The Washington Post. “And when I’ve said this to others, they kind of put their head back, they don’t understand what I mean.”

“We’re going to have the flu epidemic and the coronavirus epidemic at the same time,” Redfield said, and having two simultaneous respiratory outbreaks would put unimaginable strain on the health-care system. The first wave of covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, has already killed more than 42,000 people across the country. It has overwhelmed hospitals and revealed gaping shortages in test kits, ventilators and protective equipment for health-care workers.

In a wide-ranging interview, Redfield said federal and state officials need to use the coming months to prepare for what lies ahead. As stay-at-home orders are lifted, officials need to stress the continued importance of social distancing. Officials also need to massively scale up their ability to identify the infected through testing and find everyone they interact with through contact tracing. Doing so prevents new cases from becoming larger outbreaks.

Asked about the appropriateness of protests against stay-at-home orders and calls on states to be “liberated” from restrictions, Redfield said: “It’s not helpful.”

In 1994, the Clinton administration started a small federal program and funded it with $4.5 million to help launch new charter schools. At the time, charter schools were a new idea, and there were not many of them. The first charter school had opened in Minnesota in 1991, and six states passed laws authorizing charters in 1992. In 1994, the idea was too new to have produced results or research. So Congress allocated a measly $4.5 million.

In the 26 years since the federal Charter Schools Program started, the charter idea has burgeoned into an industry with state charter school associations, lobbyists in D.C. and in state capitols, and support from numerous foundations, billionaires, corporations, and Wall Street. There is considerable research about charters as well as controversy surrounding their methods of selecting and retaining or excluding students. Charters now enroll 6% of the nation’s students.

Two things are clear:

1. The charter sector today is very well funded by billionaire patrons such as the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe abroad Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and Netflix founder Reed Hastings. It has no need of federal funding.

2. Some charters get high test scores (and are accused of skimming to get the “best” students), some get the worst scores in their states, and most get scores about the same as public schools with similar demographics. In the one all-charter district in the nation, New Orleans, about half the schools are rated D or F by the state. Although the charter industry sings their praises, it’s clear that charters have no secret sauce to lift up every child.

Yet despite the fact that charters have a huge number of financial angels with very deep pockets, despite the fact that they do not solve the deep-seated problems of American education, despite their spotty academic record, funding for the Federal Charter Schools Program has grown to $440 million per year.

Under Betsy DeVos, the CSP has become her personal slush fund to help The expansion of large corporate charter chains, like KIPP and IDEA. The original idea that the federal funds would launch entrepreneurial start-ups is long forgotten.

About two weeks ago, DeVos released the latest CSP funds and again favored the big corporate charter chains, which have many millions in reserve and long lists of billionaire patrons.

DeVos handed out the first $200 million to her favorite chain, IDEA, which has no financial need. IDEA won $72 million, having previously received more than $200 million from DeVos. IDEA, you may recall, is known for its lavish spending. Its board approved the lease of a private jet for nearly $2 million a year, but had to cancel the lease because of adverse publicity in Texas, where the chain is based. Its CEO hired a private jet to take him to meet with DeVos in Florida; he was the only passenger. The chain’s executives,lacking their own jet, are allowed to fly first class with their families, not exactly like public school employees on official travel.

The second biggest winner was Mater Academy, which won $57 million. It is affiliated with the for-profit (and very rich) Florida for-profit chain Academica.

The Network for Public Education published two reports about the CSP in 2019, documenting that the program is shot through with waste, fraud, and abuse. About 40% of the charters funded by CSP either never opened or closed not long after opening. The loss of federal funds was $1 billion. The first report—Asleep at the Wheel— is here. The second report—Still Asleep at the Wheel—is here.

Tom Ultican reviewed the two NPE reports and recounted Betsy DeVos’s unsurprising hostile response to them. Why would she relinquish control over $440 million, which helps corporate chains that divert money from public schools and advances DeVos’s long-term goal of wrecking the foundations of public education?

It is ironic that the Trump administration in its now forgotten budget for the coming year proposed to eliminate the federal Charter Schools Program by folding it and 28 other federal programs into a bloc grant to the states. At the same time, Trump and DeVos proposed The creation of a multi-billion dollar voucher program. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives made clear that these proposals were Dead on Arrival. Nonetheless, the charter lobbyists were shocked to discover that charter schools are just a stepping-stone to vouchers for DeVos.

Peter Greene once again nails a basic fact: education is not a business, and it can’t be run like a business.

Business ideas work well in the world of commerce, where businesses compete to provide a better product or better service. Probably there will be readers who question how well business is functioning right now, as megastores like Walmart gobble up neighborhood stores, destroying Main Street, and as online giants like Amazon threaten to gobble up all brick-and-mortar stores, even Walmart.

Greene writes, and I quote him in part:

We are living through yet another demonstration of the ways in which market-based approaches fail, and in some cases, fail really hard.

Long Term Preparation Is Inefficient But Essential

Back when I was a stage crew advisor, there was a pep talk I had to give periodically to crew members, particularly those working in the wings as grips or fly. “I know that you sit and do nothing for a lot of this show,” I’d say, “but when we need you, we really need you. In those few minutes, you are critical to our success.” In those moments we were talking about, every crew member was occupied; there was no way to double up or cut corners.

Emergency preparation is much the same. It’s economically efficient to, for instance, keep a whole stockpile of facemasks or ventilators. Big-time businessman Trump justified his cuts to various health agencies by citing business wisdom:

And rather than spending the money—I’m a business person. I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them. When we need them, we can get them back very quickly.

This turns out to be just as smart as disbanding the fire department and figuring you’ll just round up personnel and equipment when something is actually on fire. It doesn’t work. And as we have witnessed, it leaves you unprepared to deal with the critical moment when it arrives.

But the market hates tying up money in excess capacity or emergency readiness, because you’re spending all that money on capacity that isn’t being used this second. Are those guidance counselors and school nurses seeing students every single minute of the day? Well then, we should be able to cut them back. Are we sure that every teacher is teaching the maximum number of students possible? Couldn’t we just put some of those students on software? This is why so many business heads are convinced that public education is simply filled with waste–because there seems to be so much excess capacity in schools.

But in many schools, there’s not enough excess capacity. When a student is in the middle of a crisis, we should be able to respond immediately, whether it’s a personal crisis, a medical crisis, or an educational issue. The response should not be “tough it out till the counselor is on duty tomorrow” or “we’ll just wrap that in some gauze until the nurse comes in three hours from now” or “I know you need help with the assignment, but I can’t take my attention away from the other thirty-five students in this classroom.” And that’s on top of the issue of preparedness, or having staff and teachers who have the capacity–the time and resources and help– to be prepared for the daily onslaught of Young Human Crises. When wealthy people pay private school tuition or raise their own public school taxes, this is what they’re paying for– the knowledge that whenever their child needs the school to respond, the response will come immediately.

Sure, you can cut a school to the bones in the name of efficiency, but what you’ll have is the educational equivalent of a nation caught flatfooted by a global pandemic because it didn’t have the people in place to be prepared.

Competition Guarantees Losers

Ed Reformsters just love the bromide about how competition raises all boats and makes everyone better. And yet, the pandemic’s free market approach to critical medical supplies doesn’t seem to bear that out. States are being forced to compete with each other and the federal government, and all it’s doing is making vendors rich. This is free market competition at its baldest– if you have more money, you win. If you have less money, you lose. At some point, if it has not already happened, some people in this country are going to die because their state, municipality or medical facility will not have enough money to outbid someone else.

The free market picks losers, and it generally picks them on the basis of their lack of wealth. The notion that losers can just compete harder, by wrapping their bootstraps in grit, is baloney. It’s comforting for winners to believe that they won because of hard work and grit and not winning some fate-based lottery, and it also releases them from any obligation to give a rat’s rear about anyone else (“I made myself, so everyone else should do the same”).

A system built on picking losers and punishing them for losing is the exact opposite of what we need for public education. You can argue that well, we just want free market competition for schools and teachers, but if that kind of competition is in the dna of the system, it will stomp all over students as well, just as all free market businesses pick customers to be losers who don’t get served because they aren’t sufficiently profitable. Kind of like a low-revenue state or old folks home that can’t get its people necessary supplies because they don’t have enough wealth to bid with.

“Compete harder” just means “be richer.” It is not helpful advice.

Please open the link and enjoy the rest of his good essay on why business thinking and cost cutting doesn’t work in education.

Who better to review a book about the depredations of the fossil fuel industry than John Thompson, who lives in Oklahoma, where that industry controls the legislature? Thompson pointed out when he sent this review that the federal governmentspends ten times more to subsidize fossil fuels than it spends on education.

He writes:
Rachel Maddow’s Blowout: Corrupted Democracy, Rogue State Russia, and the Richest Most Destructive Industry on Earth is a case study in the “Resource Curse,” the social science concept explaining why petroleum produces corruption and poverty. It’s presented in Maddow’s inimitable style, providing a “guided tour of some of the landmarks, like Oklahoma, and Equatorial Guinea, and Russia.”

Maddow describes the oil and gas industry as “essentially a big casino” that “invites gangsterism, extortion, thuggery, and the sorts of folks who enjoy these hobbies.” Of course, those behaviors are more extreme in Equatorial Guinea and Russia, but American companies also cause “mindless damage.” Big Oil is willing to profit in ways that stunts development in the Third World and funds dictators like Vladimir Putin. Moreover, minimizing damage to the planet “had never been a critical variable in oil and gas exploration.”

Blowout’s “narrative thread” starts with hydraulic fracking, a production technique developed by George Mitchell, and expanded by the Oklahoma-based corporations, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, and Continental Resources. Ironically, Putin could have learned from the foul-mouthed Oklahoman Joe Mach and ExxonMobil’s Rex Tillerson, and built an oil industry that could have been Russia’s “Crown Jewel.” (That is not to say they would have been interested in sharing the benefits or minimizing the inevitable damage.)

Maddow explains that Tillerson, for instance, had a two part-mission, “maximize shareholder profits” and “bring the world’s most vital commodity to the market.” He and the other oilmen would gladly help Putin build a 21st century economy, extracting natural gas from the Artic (which, of course, is very threatening to the environment), while turning a blind eye to other behaviors. As long as Putin kept honoring “the sanctity of contract and implementing friendly tax laws,” oil interests “have shown little hesitation in making those deals.”

But, Putin chose to almost completely control Russia’s oil industry. And as he grew more paranoid and vindictive, Putin launched the assaults on American democracy that would be documented by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

The American side of the narrative begins with Oklahoma’s Robert S. Kerr, the “Uncrowned King of the Senate.” During his reign, oilmen could have been satisfied with 5 to 10% tax break to spur exploration, but they obtained and protected their 27.5% break. Maddow describes it as the “longest-running welfare program” in US history.

Kerr was Aubrey McClendon’s great uncle. McClendon, a co-founder of Chesapeake, was the visionary character described in Sam Anderson’s Boom Town, the story of Oklahoma City becoming a “Major League City.” Like Anderson, Maddow details McClendon’s charm which explains why “people wanted to believe” him. But, “Accuracy just never really captured the expansiveness of his vision.” She says, “What he lacked in strict truthfulness, he made up for in boyish and enthusiastic sincerity.”

McClendon joked about “him and his Oklahoma redneck buddies pulling a fast one on the entire leadership suite of the City of Seattle” to bring the NBA “Thunder” basketball team to Oklahoma City. He was known for $100 tips, as well as his 100,000 bottle wine collection. McClendon invested in a 11,000 square foot mansion and a Whole Foods grocery next the Chesapeake campus, and he donated to the Sierra Club.

Chesapeake (and Devon) made $25 billion in 2008 by fracking for natural gas. By 2010, however, Oklahoma was racked by earthquakes, including the magnitude 5.7 quake in 2011. These hundreds of earthquakes were “largely caused by the underground disposal of billions of barrels of wastewater” from fracking.

McClendon’s generosity didn’t prompt an effort of dispose of toxic wastewater in a safe manner. And the quakes didn’t deter him from another “buying spree.”

The fracking pioneer, Mitchell, wasn’t surprised by what followed. He told the New Yorker’s Lawrence Wright, “’these damn cowboys will wreck the world in order to get an extra one percent’ of profit.”

By 2013, McClendon was removed from Chesapeake, and three years later he didn’t attempt to brake when speeding into a concrete bridge. After his death, Blowout focuses on Harold Hamm who used fracking to produce oil, as opposed to natural gas.

Hamm, the 13th child of sharecroppers, became the 24th richest man in America by 2014. He was worth at least $14.6 billion. Maddow says his wealth and fame “made him uncompromisingly certain of his own vision of national destiny.” He couldn’t understand the advocates for “green energy” incentives, regulations on fracking, or limits on tax breaks for oil and gas. She explains, “Hamm didn’t understand how anybody could argue against him …”

As Hamm grew richer, Oklahoma school funding dropped by 24% over ten years, making schools 49th in the nation in state funding. This prompted the 2014 walkout of 25,000 teachers. They came to the State Capitol with signs like, “We Will Not Be Silent!”

Hamm and other oil producers organized a counter-demonstration, “Rally for Rigs,” with signs like “Don’t Be a Fracking Idiot.”

The push for a tax increase for big oil and gas companies was assisted by Mike “Bubba” Cantrell, “Hamm’s former government affairs pro,” who didn’t believe his status made him better than other Oklahomans and who tried to get funding for cleanups. Cantrell said, “It’s only smart to play nice with everybody.” Also, small oil companies were paying taxes at a rate “seven times that of Continental, Devon, and Chesapeake.”

Even so, it took four years, and another teacher walkout, to raise taxes on horizontal drilling from 2 to 5%.

During that time, Hamm fought a bitter divorce battle with his wife, Sue Ann, before agreeing to a settlement of nearly a billion dollars. My only complaint with Blowout is that it didn’t describe the great good done by Sue Ann Arnall’s subsequent philanthropic efforts.

Hamm also fought aggressively against the scientific evidence that disposal of fracking waste caused earthquakes. In 2015, Oklahoma had 900 earthquakes over 3 points. The number dropped to 198 in 2018 after regulations were imposed.

Maddow described a meeting with University of Oklahoma President David Boren and Austin Holland of the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). Hamm said OGS was aiding the “war on fossil fuels.” Holland said that Hamm was “just a little intimidating.”

OU Dean Larry Grillot “wrote an email a few hours after the meeting” that said, “Mr. Hamm is very upset at some of the earthquake reporting … to the point that he would like to see select OGS staff dismissed.”

After leaving Oklahoma, Holland said that “wastewater injection deep within the earth … is an ultrahazardous activity. Because you can’t control the risk.”

Hamm, a fervent Trump supporter, further expressed his views at the 2016 Republican convention where he said, “Every time we can’t drill a well in America, terrorism is being funded.” Moreover, “Every onerous regulation puts American lives at risk.”

Maddow closes the chapter on Hamm’s defense of fracking. He said Russia was playing a role in the battle. Hamm contended, “It all ties back.”

Maddow replies, “which was nuts, of course. But it wasn’t that more nuts than the truth.”

And that brings her narrative back to Putin’s assault on American democracy. She had previously shown examples of the incompetence of Russian efforts ranging from oil production to intelligence collection, as well as “Guccifer’s” primitive methodology when stealing and publishing electronic messages.

But, after Putin put $50 billion into the 2014 Sochi games, in “a festival of corruption,” and as violence in the Ukraine distracted from his extravaganza, Putin’s ego suffered and his attacks on western democracies became more sophisticated, leading to the infamous Trump Tower meeting, and the Internet Research Agency’s fake news. After more than 1000 Ukrainians were killed, “Putin’s longtime man in Ukraine, President Viktor Yanukovych lost control.” Paul Manafort’s efforts to support Yanukovych also helped Russian corruption intrude into American elections.

In 2013, there was also an intriguing effort to bring Oklahomans into Russian matters. Carter Page registered Global Natural Gas Ventures LLC at it’s headquarter four miles from Chesapeake. Apparently Page sought to follow Aubrey McClendon’s fracking path without realizing it was a “tad stale” by then. Page’s goal was becoming a “point of contact” between Russian and American oil companies. But, Page apparently was too incompetent to pull off anything like that.

Maddow concludes that Big Oil hasn’t changed much since the 19th century. She doesn’t say oil “is hellbent on bad government for some ideological reason; it’s just practical business sense.”

She also concludes the teachers who fought back were “superheroes.”

I agree on both points. When I was an Oklahoma oil rig roughneck in the 1970s, my first day on the job was very reminiscent of the days of Social Darwinism. Like all rookies, my unofficial job title was “worm.” Our tool pusher was yelling into the radio, “Frack after dark! Frack after dark! Call Western, they love to Frack after dark!” He then explained that we were supposed load explosives into a tool for perforating a pipe. After dark, any CB radio – even in a car a hundred miles away – could blow up the entire crew.

The last time they fracked after dark, had distant radio waves ignited an explosion a minute earlier, everyone would have died. But they had just put the tool in the hole. One roughneck was declared dead on the scene, but revived on the way to the hospital. My tool pusher said he was a high school dropout and, if necessary, he would have to take the risk.

“You have a future,” he advised, if we have to frack after dark, “quit this job and hitchhike home.”

Steven Singer hears the growing demand to reopen schools in the midst of the pandemic, and he sees an ulterior motive.

The clamor to reopen the schools is not about education or even the lives of children, but freeing their parents to go back to work.

He writes that despite the lack of testing or vaccines, the Trump administration is eager to open up the economy, and reopening schools is central to that goal.

The rich need the poor to get back to work. And they’re willing to put our lives on the line to do it.

What’s worse, they’re willing to put our children’s lives on the line.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to risk my daughter’s life so that the stock market can open back up.

As a public school teacher, I’m not willing to bet my students lives so that the airlines and cruise industry can get back in the green.

Nor am I willing to gamble with my own life even if it means the NBA, NFL and MLB can start playing games and Hollywood can start premiering first run movies again.

There’s still so much we don’t know about COVID-19.

Initial reports concluded that older people were more susceptible to it, but as infections have played out worldwide, we’ve seen that 40% of patients are between 20-50 years of age. Children seem mostly asymptomatic. However, many immunologists suspect they are acting as carriers spreading the virus to the older people with whom they come into contact.

Children have a more difficult time with the constant hand washing and separating themselves at least 6 feet apart recommended by health experts. This is one of the justifications for closing schools in the first place. If we reopen schools too quickly, it could jumpstart another wave of infections.

For months, the Trump administration refused to hold press conferences to avoid answering questions from the press. Then came the pandemic, and two things happened. First, Trump stopped holding rallies for his base because it was too dangerous to hold them (ironic since he sides with the protestors who believe the pandemic is a hoax). Second, Trump realized that he could substitute daily “briefings” for his rallies, where he controls the venue and the actors, just like a reality show, with him playing the role of president.

Charles Blow of the New York Times says the free press should stop giving Trump free media in the run up to the election.

He writes:

“Around this time four years ago, the media world was all abuzz over an analysis by mediaQuant, a company that tracks what is known as “earned media” coverage of political candidates. Earned media is free media.

“The firm computed that Donald Trump had “earned” a whopping $2 billion of coverage, dwarfing the value earned by all other candidates, Republican and Democrat, even as he had only purchased about $10 million of paid advertising.

“As The New York Times reported at the time, the company’s chief analytics officer, Paul Senatori, explained: “The mediaQuant model collects positive, neutral and negative media mentions alike. Mr. Senatori said negative media mentions are given somewhat less weight.”

“This wasn’t the first analysis that found that something was askew.

“In December 2015 CNN quoted the publisher of The Tyndall Report, which also tracks media coverage, saying Trump was “by far the most newsworthy story line of campaign 2016, accounting alone for more than a quarter of all coverage’ on NBC, CBS and ABC’s evening newscasts.”

“Simply put, the media was complicit in Trump’s rise. Trump was macabre theater, a man self-immolating in real time, one who was destined to lose, but who could provide entertainment, content and yes, profits while he lasted.

“The Hollywood Reporter in February of 2016 quoted CBS’s C.E.O. as saying, “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” because as The Reporter put it, “He likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.”

“I fear that history is repeating itself.

“For over a month now, the White House has been holding its daily coronavirus briefings, and most networks, cable news channels and major news websites have been carrying all or parts of them live, as millions of people, trapped inside and anxious, have tuned in.

“The briefings are marked by Trump’s own misinformation, deceptions, rage, blaming and boasting. He takes no responsibility at all for his abysmal handling of the crisis, while each day he seems to find another person to blame, like a child frantically flinging spaghetti at a wall to see which one sticks.

“He delivers his disinformation flanked by scientists and officials, whose presence only serves to convey credibility to propagandistic performances that have simply become a replacement for his political rallies.

“We are in the middle of a pandemic, but we are also in the middle of a presidential campaign, and I shudder to think how much “earned media” the media is simply shoveling Trump’s way by airing these briefings, which can last up to two hours a day.

“Let me be clear: Under no circumstance should these briefings be carried live. Doing so is a mistake bordering on journalistic malpractice. Everything a president does or says should be documented but airing all of it, unfiltered, is lazy and irresponsible.

“As the veteran anchor Ted Koppel told The New York Times last month, “Training a camera on a live event, and just letting it play out, is technology, not journalism; journalism requires editing and context.” He continued, “The question, clearly, is whether his status as president of the United States obliges us to broadcast his every briefing live.” His answer was “no.”

“We have trained the American television audience to understand that regular programs are only interrupted for live events when they are truly important, things that the viewers need to see now, in real time. These briefings simply don’t reach that threshold. In fact, some of what Trump has said has been dangerous, like when he pushed an unproven and potentially harmful drug as a treatment for the virus.

“No amount of fact checkers, balancing with the briefings of governors, or even occasionally cutting away, can justify carrying these briefings live. The scant amount of new information that these rallies produce could be edited into a short segment for a show. The major headlines from these briefings are often Trump’s clashes with reporters, the differences he has with scientists and the lies he tells. Just like in 2016, it’s all theater.

“Donald Trump doesn’t care about being caught in a lie. Donald Trump doesn’t care about the truth.

“Donald Trump is a bare-knuckled politician with imperial impulses, falsely claiming that, “When somebody’s the president of the U.S., the authority is total,” encouraging protesters bristling about social distancing policies to “liberate” swings states, and saying that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be “overthrown, either by inside or out.”

“Trump has completely politicized this pandemic and the briefings have become a tool of that politicization. He is standing on top of nearly 40,000 dead bodies and using the media to distract attention away from them and instead brag about what a great job he’s done.

“In 2016, Trump stormed the castle by outwitting the media gatekeepers, exploiting their need for content and access, their intense hunger for ratings and clicks, their economic hardships and overconfidence.

“It’s all happening again. The media has learned nothing.”

On April 14, we lost a dear friend of this blog, of public education, of the Network for Public Education, and of me personally. Dr. Jonathan Lovell, emeritus professor of writing at San Jose State University in California died in his sleep.

Jonathan was the director of the San Jose Area Writing Project. He described himself this way on LinkedIn:

“I am a teacher of teachers, with a specific focus on the teaching of writing. My objective is to do what I do to the best of my abilities.”

He was a gifted writer as well, and I was delighted to post several of his works on this blog.

The best way to learn about his creativity and his wit is to read his work, which he usually illustrated.

Here are the posts that he sent to this blog and that I was proud to publish:

Jonathan Lovell: Martin Luther to Walt Disney to Arne Duncan

Jonathan Lovell: How I Learned to Teach Writing Without Teaching

Jonathan Lovell Writes Secretary Duncan About Punishing Colleges of Education for Student Scores

Jonathan Lovell: What the Jabberwock Teaches Us About Education Reform

Jonathan Lovell Offers Advice to President Obama

Jonathan Lovell on Creative Disruption, the Jabberwock, GERM, and Liberation

Jonathan Lovell: The Magic of Learning to Listen

Jonathan Lovell Channels John Keats While Reading “Reign of Error”

The Biggest Obstacle to Punitive “Reforms” Is…

Jonathan Lovell honored me with his friendship. I will miss him.

The Boston Globe interviewed parents and discovered a groundswell of exhaustion and frustration caused by the closure of schools and their new roles at home. I don’t think these parents will want more of the same when school reopens. The kids and their parents will be thrilled to see their teachers and classmates again when that happy day arrives.

It was music class that finally drove Melissa Mawn over the edge.

She was already dutifully arranging her quarantine workdays around the expectations of her three children’s math, English, and science teachers, surrendering her work station to their Zoom meetings.

Now, the music teacher was proposing a “fun activity” and Mawn’s thoughts immediately turned to the recorder — the piercing woodwind instrument that her twin 10-year-old boys are learning to play this year.

“I mean, we’re stuck here in the house, and I cannot have recorder class for an hour,” said Mawn, who is working full time from the Wilmington home she shares with her three children, her husband, and her in-laws.

“We have to live here and, like, not kill each other,” said Mawn, “and the recorder is definitely going to knock one of us over the edge.”

Mark the fourth week of school closures as the moment when parents began to crack. The state’s experiment in home schooling may have been interesting for a week or two, but as social media rants reveal, many parents are now fed up. Managing their children and their anxieties amid a global pandemic, and working from home if they still have jobs, some parents have begun resisting the deluge of demands coming from their children’s teachers.

“It’s just overwhelming. Everybody’s overwhelmed,” said Mawn, who aired her frustrations last week on a Facebook page for Wilmington residents.

“I understand a love for the arts but in a state of emergency, I can’t teach music and gym,” she wrote. “My children can play outside, in their own backyard or ride their own bikes in our driveway. That will have to count for gym.”

Around the same time, Sarah Parcak, a renowned archeologist from Maine, was drafting a lengthy, expletive-filled Twitter thread reiterating what she’d already told her son’s teacher: First grade was officially over for the year.

“We cannot cope with this insanity,” Parcak wrote. “Survival and protecting his well being come first.”

The parent rebellion is not at all fun for teachers, who have found themselves in a no-win situation since schools were closed in mid-March. First, they were hounded by some hard-charging parents who expected more daily structure and an immediate and effortless switch to online instruction. Teachers had to quickly develop new coursework and ways of presenting it, and jet into families’ living rooms via video conferencing, where their every move would be scrutinized.

Now, with teachers more regularly holding classes online, parents are pushing back, saying the expectations are unmanageable — particularly for younger children who can’t handle the technology on their own and need a parent by their side.

One mother reported that her Dorchester nursery school is offering twice-a-day Zoom meetings for her toddler and preschooler — a gesture that she appreciates but that she considers more trouble than it’s worth.

The first time they participated, she said, “it was like a nightmare.” The 4-year-old did not understand: “Why can’t they hear me? Why can’t I talk?” she said. When the girl did get time to speak, she grew shy and clammed up.

“And five minutes later she wants to do it and the Zoom call is over and then she’s hysterical,” the woman said.

One irony is that many parents have been schooled to limit young children’s screen times; now they’re being steered to it by preschool teachers.

It feels like some weird science fiction story, said the Dorchester mother

The story them goes on to quote one parent at length, who happens to be the leader of the Walton-funded Massachusetts Parents Union. she is not exactly typical because the MPU pays her a salary of $172,500 to advocate for charter schools and against teachers’ unions. Professor Maurice Cunningham, a specialist in dark money who is featured in SLAYING GOLIATH, has the story and the tax returns here.

A wise reader, who is anonymous, posted this comment a few days ago. I thought it was wise because we hear so many Disrupters cheering about “the end of schooling as we know it” when the reality is that most parents and students can’t wait for real school to start again. You don’t hear those same voices saying that no one will ever work in an office again; no one will every go to a concert or a play; no one will ever go to a physical store. They clearly have an agenda, and their predictions are their wishes, but they fly in the face of reality. Life goes on. It is never the same after an earth-shattering event such as a pandemic. But many things will not change. Who knows? Schools may even change for the better as parents show their gratitude to teachers and their public schools, and as the backlash against distance learning grows stronger, based on experience.

He or she wrote:

No one is calling for the end of grocery stores for Instacart, restaurants for takeout, church buildings for live streaming, physical stores for their online versions, theatre/sports/concerts for streaming, conventions for talking heads on video, clubs for solo dance parties on Zoom, renting office space for work at home, theme parks for Virtual Reality machines, etc. in the advent of COVID-19. But, so many think that this is a “great opportunity” to shift students away from school buildings.

“But education is broken.” Talk to people in any other industry, and they’ll tell you about the broken parts of those too. But they aren’t using COVID as a means to COMPLETELY change it. Yes, there will be a permanent uptick in grocery delivery, online shopping, a day or two a week to work from home, and videoconferencing as some people fall in love with the platforms and get used to them. There may even be a parent in a two-parent household where one was laid off, and they figured out that they could live on one income by getting rid of one of their car payments and so they decide to do virtual school.

BUT, society will be itching to get back into going to concerts, stores, conventions, theme parks, airplanes, sitting inside of restaurants, church, to the office, and SCHOOL!

Nancy Bailey has grown disgusted with the talk of “reinventing” and “reimagining” the school when the talk is coming from the same people who have wrecked the schools with their uninformed and harmful ideas for the past 20 years.

If there is going to be any “reinvention,” it should be done by parents and teachers at their own schools, she says.

Those who have failed us in the past should not be allowed to take control yet again, she says.

She writes:

Teachers and parents on the frontlines of this pandemic should be given control of how their schools are reimagined in the future. When this crisis ends, they should be given the voice on how to bring back democratic public schools and make them their own. Any revolution surrounding schools is theirs.

Those who foisted unproven and draconian school reform on America’s public schools in the past, now attack those reforms like they’re the fault of teachers and school systems. If public schools are broken it’s largely due to what these so-called reformers did to schools. They’re criticizing the mess they created!

Who…

insisted on high-stakes standardized tests?
pushed a no-play, no-recess curriculum on our youngest learners?
denied children with disabilities the services they need?
wrote and insisted on Common Core State Standards?
insisted on one-size-fits-all goals and instruction?
drove parents to distrust teachers?
ignored the mental health needs of children in our schools?
destroyed student privacy, especially online privacy protections?
reduced or removed the number of school nurses, counselors, and support staff in schools?
fired the librarians and closed libraries?
removed the arts from poor public schools?
set up EMO charter schools that drain funds from true public schools?
gave vouchers to schools unaccountable to the public?
praised and funded alternate teachers with fast-track training?
insisted on large class sizes?
said teachers don’t need to improve their knowledge with advanced degrees?
insisted teachers need to be evaluated by tests, using test scores of students they never taught!
opened the door to administrators who never studied or worked with children?
Trying to justify replacing schools with charter schools and online instruction will make for a nice profit.

Since their reforms failed, they and their ideas should be put out to pasture.

Bailey goes on to cite numerous examples of self-appointed “leaders” offering advice about what other people should do.

These are the people she wants to “put out to pasture.”

Read it.