Items.
Alan Greenblatt, a reporter I hold in high regard, who has covered education over the years, is resigning from Governing because he was being censored with regard to the Trump Administration. I hope some philanthropy helps him keep writing independently – decline is a choice.
Washington Post story on Virginia’s effort to raise standards:
This has been going on for 3+ years. The phase-in will be four or five years. People sometimes ask me, ‘why are people so confused about some of these issues?’ It’s such a mystery!
Apparently there also wasn’t space to point out how out of alignment Virginia’s standards are with other states – Virginia having the lowest in some cases. You know….context. The comments on the article are worth reading. But this is a debate that will be won or lost at the elite level.
ICYMI
On a new WonkyFolk Jed and I talked with Macke Raymond about education overall but in particular what’s happening at CREDO. Listen through that link, wherever you get podcasts, or watch or listen below.
At LinkedIn Dan Goldhaber, Michael DeArmond, Melissa Steele-King and I talk about pandemic research – and our joint BW – Calder Pandemic Learning Project research. Covid disruption created a host of natural experiments as various policies were waived or modified on the fly. We’re trying to learn from that. We discuss all that and more in this conversation.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
The Vagueness Problem
I split my time between two communities. Politically, in the last election one went roughly 80–20 for Harris, the other 70–30 for Trump. As you might imagine, there was a more robust “No Kings” rally in one place than the other. That’s part of the point. In Virginia, No Kings was in part a turnout strategy—our statewide elections happen in off-years and are happening now—but as a message, it was more catharsis than strategy.
Think about effective political leaders for a moment. They use symbols and targets, not generalized vibes. Martin Luther King Jr.’s message wasn’t “things are bad” or “here’s what we don’t like.” He chose specific targets—symbolic and important—and went after them, strategically. (Worth noting: Trump, too, picks his targets well, at least from a political standpoint.)
By contrast what was the specific message of No Kings? Effective political efforts pick smart targets, apply pressure, and go after them. No Kings was every left-of-center cause under the sun: the environment, the economy, layoffs, the Supreme Court, trans rights, education, DOGE, tariffs, and so on. The unifying theme was simple: “We don’t like Donald Trump.” Fair enough—I don’t either. But that’s not an agenda for change; it’s an emotion. Politically, it was a rehash of an election we just ran—and Democrats lost. Not by the landslide Trump and his minions claim, but convincingly enough. And in that election—and the two before—we learned that about half the country doesn’t like Donald Trump. Maybe more now, according to polls. But in many cases, they like the Democrats even less. No we don’t like Trump is not revelatory; it’s retread.
The rally I saw was near Washington, D.C., where federal workers are being treated horribly by the President and OMB Director Russ Vought. That would be a specific thing to protest, with concrete remedies to demand. Or take the issue of masked federal agents grabbing people off the street—that’s both unpopular and actionable. Or various issues at the Department of Justice. Or the arguably extra-judicial killings of drug runners. The list goes on—but that’s the point. Plenty of good targets. Pick one or two. A generalized primal scream might be a fun way to spend a Saturday, if that’s your thing, but it doesn’t create leverage.
It’s great to get people fired up. But real politics isn’t therapy—it’s leverage. The point isn’t to shout at the throne; it’s to take back power from the crown.
“Patriotic Education” is not.
I don’t do a lot of public commenting through a formal process. (Part of my job, of course, is public commenting overall though, and I do a lot of that.) And I’m fortunate that I’m often asked for input on things in other ways.
But I did decide to offer a public comment on the proposal to make “patriotic” education a formal priority with a specific definition in federal policy. The answer to left-wing political coercion in schools is not right-wing political coercion in schools. We can do better and this proposal takes us in the wrong direction.
My comment is below.:
My comment reflects my personal views, not those of my employer (which does not take positions and where some colleagues may disagree with me) or any other organization with which I am affiliated. For background, I’ve had the privilege in my career of teaching civics, helping to write state standards in public roles, and advising various organizations and institutions on these questions. My comment is about the proposed definition of “patriotic education.”
It’s obviously essential that we do a better job teaching history–abundant state and national data make that clear. Our literacy and history challenges are intertwined, and so are their solutions. Ensuring that students have a rich history curriculum to support literacy–with books and primary sources reflecting diverse viewpoints and age-appropriate content–is critical.
However, this proposed definition of “patriotic education” would work against that goal rather than advance it in several key ways. First, we should not flinch from teaching how America has grown closer to a more perfect union, but neither should we shy away from teaching the ways we have fallen short. This definition overemphasizes the former while minimizing the latter. That is the path to indoctrination, not education. The response to coercive practices should not be more coercion of a different kind.
Second, related, this approach invites a counterproductive cycle as elections shift political control over federal policy. Over-indexing on one interpretation of history will inevitably lead to an overcorrection in the opposite direction. That energy would be better spent improving instructional quality for students rather than perpetuating political swings and adult-focused education politics.
Third, states are appropriately taking the lead here, and while the quality of their standards varies, there are exemplars. The key problem in state standards is less about red or blue, left or right, or woke versus anti-woke, and more about instructional ideology and quality. Standards should be specific, content-focused, accurate, and rigorous. This proposed definition distracts from that essential work.
Fourth, we are talking about public schools–open to, and funded by, Americans with a wide range of beliefs. It is entirely appropriate to teach students about patriotism, our traditions, and why they are worthy of respect. It is equally appropriate, in a free country, for people and families to see things differently and dissent. Our role in education is to ensure students can make informed choices about these questions, not to make those choices for them.
We can teach young students why and how people show respect for the flag, but we cannot coerce their respect for it; that is the role of their family and then themselves when they are of age. We can teach about the genius of the Founders’ design, but we cannot suppress dissent should students–after a rigorous and high-quality education–see it differently. In education, our adversary is not viewpoint; it is ignorance.
That’s why this proposed definition is as inappropriate as its inverse would be–a federal priority that called for a diminished focus on American accomplishments and leadership. American patriots are not afraid of exposing our history and achievements to scrutiny; they welcome it. They are not afraid to let students make up their own minds about American aspirations, values, traditions, and history after a high-quality education, because they have confidence in those very aspirations, values, and traditions. Patriots know that anything less denies and discredits our greatness; it does not advance it. When forced, it is the antithesis of patriotism.
For a more robust approach, I urge you to look at Virginia’s 2023 History and Social Science Standards, which cover both American and global history as well as civics. The front matter and the standards themselves offer a roadmap–praised by experts on the political right and left–for how to balance teaching all of our history while avoiding indoctrination one way or another. They explicitly note that debate, petitioning the government for change, and protest can be patriotic and essential to progress. In this country, we don’t fear disagreement; we manage it through the brilliance of the Founders’ work.
The confidence in our way of life embodied in that approach offers a more constructive path forward than fragile efforts at coercion reflecting fear and insecurity. We don’t need to ennoble American values, because we believe that when exposed to them, students will see their worth and merit. We don’t need to force unity, because we believe in E pluribus unum. In other words, true patriotism includes faith in our institutions, in our people, and in our ability to confront our full history because of our belief in America. A patriotic education would reflect that. This definition does not.
I urge you to withdraw or revise this priority.
Fish Porn
It’s Friday, so fish.
Here’s Simmons Covington with a monster from the Frying Pan on a recent Colorado trip.
Friday Fish what? New around here? In this unique archive, you’ll find hundreds of pictures of education types and their relatives with fish from rivers, lakes, and streams all over the world. Send me yours to be included.
Want Eduwonk.com in your inbox via Substack? Sign up for free here.
View the original article and our Inspiration here