Core Beliefs at Play

“The more one pleases generally, the less one pleases profoundly.”
― Stendhal, Love

Every discussion about public education policy centers on the belief that it is either a public good or a commodity.

Is the system designed to benefit the individual or the society?

For debate opponents, that river has never been successfully crossed.

The initial vision might have prioritized society over the individual, but the benefit to the individual has long eclipsed that original vision.

The rise in school options has grown with parents' recognition that not all public school systems are created equally. Under the banner of public education, a wealth of inequities exists, even with schools in the same district. Districts try to keep this a secret from parents and act as if they say equity enough and tout growth scores repeatedly; parents will be placated. But parents know, and I've yet to meet the parents who won't do everything possible to fully prepare their child for the future. If the district can't provide it, they'll find it elsewhere.

Perception also matters. We attempt to persuade parents not to leave traditional schools by describing all the faults of private and charter schools. That strategy fails to acknowledge that traditional schools are not meeting the needs of some students. We fail to recognize that, in many cases, parents are so unhappy that they are willing to ignore anti-charter and private school arguments to try something different.

Parents are not dumb. They can run risk/reward simulations on choices that meet their personal needs, and those needs aren't all the same.

I recently became upset with a social media post by the principal of Hume-Fogg, a local high-achieving magnet school.

In theory, I have no issue with academic magnet schools. I firmly believe that high-achieving children have different needs than the average student. They deserve enhanced opportunities and the chance to be surrounded by their peers. The caveat is that admission is based on achievement.

Hume-Fogge's admission is based on a lottery. To qualify for that lottery, a student must hold an 80 GPA. Once entered into the lottery, everyone has the same chance. Win the lottery, and you enter a world of increased opportunity. None of this is much different from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, with the hunt for the golden ticket.

Now, once there, a student has to do the work, but one shouldn't be surprised when those students are afforded such an opportunity to do great things.

Flip through the course offerings at Hume-Fogg, and you'll see classes unavailable at other district high schools. This summer, I am paying $600 for an advanced math course for my daughter that is offered at Hume-Fogg. A class that will allow her to take other high-level math classes in her junior and senior years. The class may serve as a prerequisite but won't be recognized by the district because my daughter is a rising junior and, therefore, not eligible for the state's dual enrollment grant. Since not all parents can pay for schooling outside district-offered classes, equity demands that she not receive district credit for her class. Let's be clear: I can't afford to pay for that class, but as a parent, I'm not going to deny her the opportunity to reach her goals. Especially when those opportunities are already provided by public schools in surrounding wealthier counties.

So forgive me when I get angry when students are celebrated for achievements my child never had a shot at despite her classroom performance. I'm not taking anything away from the Humme-Fogg students' accomplishments, but I do lose faith in a system that recognizes one fact while ignoring the others.

Somehow, fidelity to public education demands that I recognize one while ignoring the other. It requires that parents settle for "they'll be fine" instead of demanding an opportunity to be exceptional.

That said, not every family is in search of exceptionalism. Their priorities are different, and they deserve to have their needs met as well. But let's not pretend that we are running a district where all students are known and all needs are met. Let's acknowledge that a different setting would suit some students better. Let's recognize that parents will not be willing to sacrifice their children for the proposed good of society.

Valor is a local high-achieving charter school on par with Hume-Fogg. While Valor is an outstanding school for some students, others are better served by a traditional school. What I'd like to see is an acknowledgment of that fact and an end to declaring one school better than the other based solely on its being a charter school or a traditional school.

We celebrate diversity and individualism in every aspect of today's society—except public education. That isn't right.

Public education should strike a better balance between the individual and society.

Another debate that goes unacknowledged in policy discussions is whether public schools are "politically neutral government service focused on impartially equipping students with knowledge and skills they need to be independent and productive adult citizens" or are they vehicles to "teach for social justice" and commit to challenging systemic inequities.

It's a fundamental question that drives parents to consider alternative school choice options.

Education policy expert Robert Pondiscio tackles that discussion in a piece for the Thomas Fordham Institute.

Pondiscio uses a recent class offering from Philadelphia to jump into the conversation:

In a report for The Free Press, Frannie Block reveals that the city's school district has created a controversial eleventh-grade world history course and other social studies materials with assignments and lessons that encourage students to reinterpret U.S. and world history through the lens of systemic injustice and activism. Students are asked to select a song to replace the national anthem after reflecting on racism and, when studying the Civil War, to understand that "racist attitudes played a foundational role in the formation of American identity." Other lessons frame westward expansion and the Cold War in terms of American supremacy and racial exclusion, encourage students to view U.S. foreign policy through the lens of racism, and describe wartime propaganda as creating a manufactured sense of national unity. A unit in world history teaches that economic inequality shows "the need for systemic changes and equitable economic policies." The unit examines "the intersections of climate justice, economic justice, anti-fascism, and human rights.

The author points out that the district does not mandate the curriculum for the course; rather, it is at the discretion of the teacher. That adds a significant wrinkle.

Pondiscio writes:

This forces us to confront a seldom-examined tension that is baked into the culture of teaching and the structure of public education. Education is widely assumed by Americans to be a politically neutral government service focused on impartially equipping students with the knowledge and skills they need to be independent and productive adult citizens.Yet many teacher preparation programs explicitly train educators to "teach for social justice" and commit to challenging systemic inequities. And those commitments are situated within a professional culture that is uniquely well-suited to advance them, if teachers are so inclined.

As I've noted elsewhere, no category of public employee enjoys more freedom, flexibility, or insulation from democratic oversight than teachers. A bus driver cannot choose to drive for social justice, disregarding his assigned route; a police officer cannot patrol a different beat if he perceives a more urgent need in a different neighborhood. By contrast, teachers—and those in their states and local districts who develop materials for classrooms—possess almost unlimited authority to shape what students read and hear by choosing texts, guiding classroom discussions, and selecting resources to reflect their educational priorities or philosophy. Those unfamiliar with classroom practice (and even some inside) assume that public education is a top-down enterprise: states, districts, or school boards choose a curriculum, and teachers robotically deliver officially sanctioned lessons. It's simply not so. The vast majority of classroom teachers create, customize, or simply download teaching materials from the Internet with no meaningful oversight or controls for fairness, accuracy, or quality.

To be clear, there are good reasons for teachers' operational flexibility. It enables educators to differentiate instruction, respond to local contexts, and craft lessons that resonate with students. Done well, it reflects professionalism and skill. But there is no limiting principle. It is only when controversies like this one in the City of Brotherly Love erupt into public view that we're forced to reckon with the conflict between public education's status as an ostensibly neutral government function and the field's conception of itself as anything but neutral.

Long-time readers know that I am a strong proponent of teacher autonomy. They also know I am not a strong opponent of schools being used as tools for social change. Educate students, and then allow them to make social change designed to reflect the society they create, not the goals and aspirations of adults.

Teachers will argue that indoctrination in classrooms is ludicrous. What's preposterous to me is the thought that when children know your political views, it doesn't shape or alter theirs. That works for both sides of the aisle, and over the years, it's become increasingly apparent that students are a captive audience that can be used to fight cultural battles.

Parents recognize the influence schools and teachers have on their children. They see it at home. We like to act as if parents have little interaction with their children once they enter the schooling years. That is not true. Trust me, we talk.

As a parent, I resent being shamed and dismissed if I have questions about what should be communicated in schools. Think shamed is too strong a word? Try raising questions sometimes about policies to promote equity and watch how fast you are portrayed as a racist. Question materials used in classrooms, and you'll instantly be transformed into a MAGA supporter.

I know those last two paragraphs read as a defense of conservatives, but as Pondiscio points out:

Twenty years ago, a comprehensive American Educational Research Association (AERA) review observed that "conceptualizing teaching and teacher education in terms of social justice has been the central animating idea for education scholars and practitioners who connect their work to larger critical movements." In that framing, the teacher is not merely a professional educator, but also an activist committed to diminishing the inequities of American society. So, too, are some number of the "education scholars" who participate in curriculum development.

It's important to note that this situation can also operate in the opposite direction. The same permission structure that enables teachers and administrators to create lessons based on the 1619 Project or Howard Zinn's *A People's History of the United States* also permits them to choose materials from PragerU or 1776 Unites, which they do routinely and without controversy. It's a double-edged sword.

Pondiscio sums it up best in his closing paragraph:

Public schools are among our most important civic institutions, essential to both individual opportunity and democratic life. But they cannot be both a core government service and a platform for personal or political expression. The tension between those roles has been allowed to fester unexamined for too long. The result is a steady erosion of public trust—not because Americans don't value education, but because they can no longer be certain whose interests it serves. If schools want to reclaim that trust, they must first be clear-eyed about the role they play. And then act like it.

But the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem. We are a long way from taking that first step.

- - -

It's taken about 6 years, but former MNPS Director of Schools Shawn Joseph has finally found a new district to lead, albeit as an interim director.

Joseph came to MNPS after serving as a deputy director at Prince George County Schools. He now returns as the interim director. With his return come the old tropes about Joseph being a victim of the racist South.

Per a report in News 4 Washington:

While Joseph could not be reached for comment, County Council Chair Ed Burroughs said he believes in Joseph and his leadership. Burroughs pointed out that Joseph was the first Black director of the Nashville school system and believes there was racism and pushback to Joseph's equity agenda and that he was essentially run out unfairly.

It's an argument that supporters continually try to make despite the extensive documentation of his failings and the success of his successor, a Black Female who promotes many of the same policies he introduced. Maybe it had more to do with his treating the locals as yokels and his own incompetency and less to do with race.

Ironically, Joseph replaces a very successful former Tennessee school district leader. While Joseph took slings and arrows in Nashville, Millard House received nothing but praise in Clarksville as their school superintendent. Now, the roles are reversed.

- - -

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon came to Tennessee. Officially, she was here for a conference. Unofficially, the visit provided an opportunity to drum up support for the nomination of former state superintendent Penny Schwinn as Deputy Director of the USDOE.

Tennesseans know what they got with Ms. Schwinn. They'll publically smile and nod when her accolades are listed, but privately they call bull shit.

Still, the visit must have been somewhat successful. The vote on Schwinn's nomination is scheduled in committee for next Thursday. The committee is scheduled to vote on a lengthy list of nominees, so it's likely she is approved. However, there is a wrinkle to keep an eye on.

Senator Marsha Blackburn has been rumored to be a decisive no vote. Still, if scuttlebutt on the street is to be believed, Schwinn business partner Blake Harris is rumored to now be working for Blackburn, who is considering a run for Governor. Harris has strong ties to Governor Lee, a Schwinn supporter.

It'll be interesting to see how Blackburn votes on Schwinn's nomination.

- - -

We'd be remiss if we failed to acknowledge the loss of an exceptional human being this week.

Amina "Anna" Darbashi Pierce was a beloved biology teacher and tennis coach at Hunters Lane High School.

This week, she was shot and killed in what police are calling a murder-suicide.

A police investigation showed the couple argued about divorce and financial issues before Steven Pierce shot and killed Amina Pierce. A revolver was found under Steven Pierce, according to police.

Per school principal Dr. Sue Kessler, Anna Pierce had just completed her 7th year teaching at Hunters Lane. She enjoyed teaching biology and 9th graders because she was convinced that the relationships she built with students would help them through graduation and beyond. She was one of the tennis coaches and worked tirelessly to increase the number of tennis players at our school. Ms. Pierce loved learning about leadership, and she was working on her licensure to become a principal.

Anna Pierce was the mother of two young girls, ages 2 and 4, and the adopted mother of her husband's 17-year-old daughter.

Words can not express the depth of this loss to her family and the Nashville community. Saying our thoughts and prayers lie with the family feels inadequate, but sometimes, that is all we can say.

- - -

If you want me to highlight and share something, send it to Norinrad10@yahoo.com. Wisdom or criticism is always welcome.

As you may suspect, keeping this blog going comes at a cost. In that light, I've set up several ways for you to show your financial support.

I invite you to subscribe to Substack. The rates are reasonable if you become a paid subscriber, and a free option remains. The only difference is that one allows me to eat better, but I appreciate you signing up for either.

You can also donate through my Venmo (Thomas-Weber-10) or Cash App ($PeterAveryWeber)

A massive shout-out to all of you who've already lent your financial support. I am eternally grateful for your generosity. It allows me to keep doing what I do, and without you, I would have been forced to quit long ago. It is truly appreciated and keeps the bill collectors happy. Now more than ever, your continued support is vital.

If you wish to join the ranks of donors but are not interested in Substack, you can still go to Patreon and help a brother out.