Statement On Statements. Plus Is Education Always Last To Get The Memo? Plus Fish!

All of us agree about this newsletter...

ICYMI — Laura Marcus from Tidelines Institute stopped by to talk about her education journey and the experiential education work she is leading in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Jed and I discussed several issues on the last WonkyFolk. Here’s a new analysis on AI from Bellwether. And here’s a new analysis of special education finance from Bellwether.

It took Harvard 388 years to catch up with Bellwether.

One of Bellwether’s most popular — or most frustrating, depending on your perspective — policies over our almost fifteen years is that we don’t take organizational positions or put out statements about things on behalf of everyone who works at the organization. The personal positions of the organization’s leaders don’t affect what people who work here can say, write about, or work on. Part of my job is editing and helping to strengthen arguments I don’t personally agree with on various issues. It’s not for everyone, but I believe it’s a good approach.

When the draft of the Dobbs decision was leaked in advance of the 2022 Supreme Court decision, I remember receiving an email from a prominent education advocacy/DEI organization with a bunch of employees saying they were all devastated. All? That struck me as odd. Unless your position on abortion is a litmus test for hiring, a diverse organization would likely have people on all sides of this complex issue. I know we do at Bellwether. (Why an education organization even has a position on abortion is a different issue, but these are the times we live in.)

Meanwhile, the data on abortion shows disagreement that transcends various demographic lines (and despite the best efforts of politicians to divide us, there’s a rough consensus that people aren’t okay with restrictions in the first trimester, are in the third, and disagree mightily on the second). About one in four Black Americans believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, as do about one in three Hispanic Americans. So you should expect some diversity on the issue in a diverse organization unless you're actually screening for politics not diversity. Abortion is hardly the only issue where such differences arise. You see it on issues like immigration and on many education questions where polling may surprise you. It’s probably one reason Trump has steadily made meaningful gains among non-white voters since 2016. Life is more complicated than how it’s portrayed in most elite non-profit conference rooms.

People sometimes ask why Bellwether follows this approach, and the answer is straightforward: We work with various organizations across the sector. We don’t choose clients by segment but by whether the work is innovative and improvement-focused. We collaborate with charter schools, school districts, private schools, and people from a range of ideological viewpoints. We work in red, blue, and purple states with state leaders and public entities.

It’s challenging to work like this if you’re constantly taking positions on the issues of the day. Especially, because as anyone paying attention knows, these various essential positions often turn out to be surprisingly ephemeral. I’ve been in this field long enough to have seen reformers supporting and then opposing — and maybe supporting again — high standards, for example. What were once absolutely totemic beliefs are often quickly and quietly forgotten as fashions change. Note the Economist item below. 

Practically, it allows us to avoid circuses like this. Not surprisingly, more and more institutions are realizing that silence isn’t violence; instead, it’s a way to stay focused on your actual mission. (Around the sector, people sometimes argue that the mission is everything or some vague commitment to social justice broadly speaking. That’s not a mission; it’s a slogan.) Our team is free to express their political views on their own time. We don’t police editorial content or restrict what employees say or do outside of work, even regarding education issues (this happens more than you might think).

This approach can be frustrating. Externally, people want to know why we don’t take positions on certain issues. Or they suggest that not doing so will get us “coded” as having a particular stance. This is obviously silly — judge people and organizations based on what they actually say, not on everything they don’t say. Internally, some staff wonder why we don’t at least take positions on what are probably universally agreed-upon issues around the organization. Understandably, people sometimes want their employer to take a stance on something they or their peers feel strongly about. But that road opens up endless debates, internal persuasion efforts, and the like. You can’t only lean into a principle when it’s easy; it matters most when it’s hard. Besides, everyone believes their particular issue is so important it must be the exception to the rule.

What we don’t do is claim we’re open to multiple viewpoints and then quietly police them — something that’s also unfortunately common. While I don’t agree with organizations that fire people for unpopular viewpoints, at least they’re transparent about it.

In any event, the narrowing of the scope of statements view seems to be winning the day. A Bellwether perhaps. 

Lessons

Robert Pondiscio wrote an op-ed related to the Corey DeAngelis issue, pointing out that conservatives are more likely to be “canceled” than lefties. He’s not wrong, but it’s a case of whataboutism and hammer-nail thinking (if you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail).

First of all, Corey wasn’t truly canceled — he was back at it just days later (tweeting and advocating, to be clear). Second, to the extent that any canceling happened, it was from the political right. He lost his role at AFC, but it’s not unreasonable for a pro-kid choice organization to find his actions a bit too much. Especially given the context in which Corey operated and fueled. They didn’t fire him for a controversial viewpoint. The left didn’t like Corey to begin with, so I guess they couldn’t cancel him — though they surely would’ve happily done so if it were on offer. 

Robert is certainly correct that left-wing radicals dominate education academia, where they outnumber right-wing radicals and where thought policing is disturbingly common. That’s because, in our long-running culture war, the right got state governments and institutions, while the left took academia and media — and we fight over the rest.

I’m not sure that DeAngelis doing porn sheds much light on any of that or on much of anything else beyond his personal story. Several of his allies have told me that if he hadn’t been such a toxic presence on social media, he probably would’ve had a much softer landing. That might be the lesson here.

Denver

It’s a poor reflection on the education sector that new studies showing important impacts are largely ignored if they don’t fit the prevailing narrative or political fashion. This tendency is how we ended up in the reading policy mess that leaders are now trying to untangle, but it’s a lesson few seem eager to learn.

A new study out of Denver is important for two reasons. First, the results of the portfolio approach show significant effects. Is it perfect? No, but the findings are significant. Yet we hear mostly crickets. Second, the results underscore how we tend to abandon reforms before they’ve had time to demonstrate their efficacy. Denver walked away from what seems like a crucial set of reforms.

USS Michael Bennet and Tom Boasberg weigh in on some of the implications.

What’s worse is that the district actually fought to keep the data from reaching researchers. It’s not uncommon in our sector — and that should also be a story! The local paper did gymnastics to undercut the findings. Public radio did better.

It’s not just the media. These implications should be central in education conversations, at conferences, and among leaders. You don’t make major decisions based on one study, but you do pay attention and discuss the findings. We don’t.

Also, someone might say thank you to Paul Hill. 

Education is always the last to get the memo?

The Economist recently examined the ebbing of “woke” sentiments, using data not just vibes. It touches on the issue of activist capture, which has done considerable damage to the education sector. The kicker:

Ruy Teixeira of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, says, “I think people will one day look back on the 2015 to 2025 era as being a bit of a moment of madness.” But even though Mr. Teixeira believes the woke wave has set social progress back, he notes that, over the long run, America has been reducing discrimination and improving opportunities for minorities of all sorts. That trend, he believes, is lasting.

There are plenty of problems, but in practice the country is depolarizing racially you see that in political behavior, social mobility, and habits. Raj Chetty just released some work that you'd think would get more attention about race and class. Most social indicators are going in the right direction. Yet activists have a vested interest in arguing the opposite on a host of questions and too often the education world is an easy mark.

20,000 parents walk into a bar...

This new survey from 50Can is worth your time, with great state-by-state breakouts.

Friday Fish Porn

Terry Ryan is one of the best people to work with in our sector. Committed, patient, impactful, interesting backstory, wonderful human. His daughters are gems, too. Here's one with her boyfriend and a lovely trout on the Owyhee River in Oregon.

Want more fish? Check out this unique archive of hundreds of pictures of education types with their fish. Send me yours!

*The one exception we have is issues affecting 501(c)(3) organizations as a class. It has never come up, but if, for example, changes to the tax code that could negatively affect an organization like Bellwether were proposed, we would weigh in insofar as it impacts our ability to do our work.