This Doesn’t End Well

President Obama, for all of his many failings, was good at one thing:  he regularly refused to get caught up in the politics of the moment.  Whether it was the Ebola outbreak in Africa, the multiple mass shootings that happened under his watch, or the continually deteriorating events in Syria, he always resisted the immediate calls for him to do something.  This remained true at the end of his presidency, when liberals were demanding that he do something about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and were ultimately furious when he demurred.  This was a key element of his leadership style, as he said in a 2016 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg:

“I believe that we have to avoid being simplistic. I think we have to build resilience and make sure that our political debates are grounded in reality. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the value of theater in political communications; it’s that the habits we—the media, politicians—have gotten into, and how we talk about these issues, are so detached so often from what we need to be doing that for me to satisfy the cable news hype-fest would lead to us making worse and worse decisions over time.”

So now we’re six months into the Trump administration.  Gone is the Democratic party leader who urged caution as the Breaking News chyrons urged the opposite.  Gone is the veneer of a Democratic Party that is grounded in reality – the “big kids in the room” who care about policy outcomes and rely on charts, graphs, and experts to advance a vision of a technocratic utopia.  Instead, what we are left with is a party succumbs to the politics of the moment at every twist in the news cycle.  Instead we are left with a party that refuses to accept a shred of responsibility for the outcome of the last election, placing blame solely on a foreign government.  Instead we are left with a party that, when faced with overwhelming evidence that they need to make wholesale changes, has steadfastly refused to do so.  We are left with a party suffering from mass delusions.

The big story of the last six months has been Russian “meddling” in our election.  From all appearances, this meddling amounted to a propaganda campaign, using information that was stolen from the DNC.  There’s no indication that vote tallies were changed or that the propaganda campaign had any discernible affect on the outcome of the election.  Still, with each piece of breaking news related to this story, the hysteria is palpable.  It’s now the norm for all of us to hear the reaction to breaking news before we bother to understand what the news actually is, coloring how we perceive that news.  Everyone is convinced that there is something huge underneath all of it, but no one can tell you exactly what that thing is.  It’s exactly the “hype-fest” that President Obama referred to – we are being driven by an urgent need to respond to crises before we even know what those crises are.

So how are Democrats responding to this new landscape? Well, exactly as you’d expect:

Former DNC Chair: Russian Election Hacking An ‘Act of War’

Democrats step up calls that Russian hack was act of war

Cory Booker: ‘The Russians Are Attacking our Democracy and they will come again’

Tim Kaine: Trump Jr. may have committed treason

Begala:  We Should ‘Debate Whether We Should Blow Up’ Russia

So after all of the failures of 2016, the Democrats – our supposed left-wing party – have settled on a new party platform:  Cold War 2.0.  And it’s not as if this doesn’t have any short term political value – it clearly does.  By painting the current president as illegitimate, they help ensure that he can’t accomplish much in the short term.  And there’s good news on that front:  This president and congress are deeply unpopular, as are literally every policy that they’ve proposed.  Their poll numbers are dropping and the prospect of a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2018 has become very real.

In the long term, however, Democrats clearly have a messaging problem.  We already have a party that plays the “America First” card to great success.  We already have a party that wraps itself in the flag and accuses the other side of being in league with the enemy.  We already have a party that is, by and large, interested in renewing Cold War-level hostilities with the Russians (See McCain, John).  And the thing about Republicans is that they’re good at that shit.  It works for them.  When Democrats do it – think Dukakis riding a tank or John Kerry “reporting for duty” in 2004 – it looks stupid.  And for a party that struggled in 2016 to tell the American people why the fuck anyone should vote for them, you’d think that they’d be interested in finding ways to differentiate themselves from their opponents.  Instead, they’ve chosen to embrace the language of the national security state.  Instead, they’ve chosen a pernicious form of flag-waving nationalism as a sort of placeholder for any actual policy that could effect positive change in the lives of Americans.  Instead, they’ve decided to double down on their 2016 message of “you’re doing just fine, and we’ve got the charts and graphs to prove it” with the important caveat that a vote against them is a vote for Vladimir Putin.

By embracing the language of the national security state, Democrats are making a choice.  And where do you think that takes us?  Which direction do you think the consequences of this choice will fall?  Has there been a single instance in our short history where the language of treason and sedition have been used to advance an agenda of positive social change?  Has there been a single instance where these politics have not been eventually been used to punch left?  By putting faith in our military and security apparatus, Democrats are sending a clear message:  they don’t have a vision.  They don’t care about your future.  They spent the entirety of the 2016 campaign studiously avoiding taking positions on anything, and they’re hoping to continue that strategy for the next three and a half years because it worked so well for them. When you’ve convinced yourself that  your past failures are all the fault of a foreign entity, why change things up?  What could possibly go wrong?

The last six months have made it crystal clear that very little has changed in the Democratic Party since 2003, when they voted en masses to invade Iraq. They are still a party that is defined by a distinct lack of courage in everything they do. They are still slaves to the hysteria of the moment, terrified to look weak on defense or earn the ire of the military-industrial complex. And here’s the problem with that:  Conflicts between nation-states don’t always happen because countries actually, you know, want them to.  Often times, major conflicts happen because actors on both sides back  themselves into positions that they can’t back down from, and an unforeseen crisis brings both parties to the brink of open conflict.  With the American and Russian military increasingly engaged in close proximity in a widening proxy war, the odds of one of those unforeseen crises rises every day.

So my question is this:  If push comes to shove, who’s going to put on the brakes when the calls come for our leaders to do something?  Who will be working for peace when the overwhelming consensus coalesces behind war?  Who will be able to see past the hysteria of the moment?

I really hope we don’t have to find out any time soon.

Terrell Johnson, RIP


Last week, Portland Police shot and killed yet another man.  The usual descriptors for victims of police violence apply here:  Person of color.  Homeless.  Mentally ill.  Possibly drug-addicted.  He didn’t sit down when he was told to.  He ran away instead of complying with verbal orders.  He was “armed” with a box knife, which carried with it a death sentence.  He was shot multiple times and died on the scene.

 Any time something like this happens, a deliberate and concerted public relations campaign is kicked into gear within the Portland Police Bureau. They’ve had a lot of practice at it, and there are rules to be followed. This year’s most egregious example of police violence, the execution of 17-year old Quanice Hayes, provides us with a clear outline of how these rules are put into practice:

  • Rule #1: If there is a piece of evidence that makes the shooting appear justified, it will be released immediately. That’s why, when Quanice Hayes was killed in February, the police were quick to release a former mugshot (which was not public record because he was a minor) in addition to a photo of the replica handgun he had allegedly been carrying the night before he was shot.  That’s why they released every sordid detail of his alleged behavior before he was confronted by police.  That’s why, when rumors started spreading that Hayes had been shot in the back, police immediately released a statement saying that he had been shot three times in the chest.  Because these pieces of information bolster the police’s version of events, there is no restriction on when they can be released.
  • Rule # 2: If there is a piece of evidence that makes the shooting appear unjustified, it will be withheld pending the completion of the investigation.  If the police’s initial statement is wanting for details, journalists and citizens are informed that the information cannot be released due an “ongoing investigation.”  That’s why we had to wait until the Grand Jury transcript was released to learn that Andrew Hearst, the officer who shot Hayes, didn’t even see the replica handgun on Hayes’ person before he shot him to death.  In fact, Hayes was not even carrying the weapon – it was found in a nearby flower bed. This information was only released after the officer had been acquitted of all charges – almost six weeks after the shooting itself.
  • Rule #3:  The media will do your dirty work for you. This is why, soon after Hayes was killed, headlines referred to him as a “man.”(They have since been changed)  This is why they posted his mugshot next to a photo of that replica handgun with every headline, despite having no information from the police as to the role of that replica in the incident itself.  This is why they dutifully reported the police’s version of events before the grand jury transcript even came out.  This is why we didn’t see a single editorial in a major Portland publication critical of the police’s conduct in this situation despite the intense public outcry, which involved protesters repeatedly shutting down City Hall meetings.

So what does PPB’s conduct in the Hayes shooting tell us about their likely conduct in this latest incident?

Here’s what we know about the night in question: Someone called 911 on Johnson because he was behaving erratically at the Flavel St. MAX station. Police responded, confronted him, and soon after he ran away from them.  They pursued him, but what happens next remains murky.  From PPB’s official statement:

As Officer Ajir and Deputy Ajir arrived, Johnson ran from the officers — first westbound on Flavel then back eastbound before running northbound on the MAX bridge over Johnson Creek.

Officer Ajir was in close proximity to Johnson when Johnson displayed a utility knife prompting Officer Ajir to fire his handgun multiple times, striking Johnson. After Johnson was down on the ground, additional officers arrived and approached Johnson with a shield for officer-safety, then began rendering immediate medical aid until paramedics arrived. Paramedics determined that Johnson was deceased. A utility knife was recovered from the scene.

Reading closely, the word that immediately jumps out from this statement is “displayed,” which was chosen very deliberately.  Saying that Johnson “displayed” the box knife is vague enough to elicit a variety of images in the minds of the public, but innocuous enough to encompass a variety of largely harmless motions as well.  Rule #1: If there is a piece of evidence that makes the shooting look justified, it will be released immediately. Because of this, we can assume that if Johnson had drawn, pointed, or otherwise threatened the officers in question with his “utility knife,” there is an approximately 100% chance that the police would have mentioned it in their official statement.  The fact that they chose the word “displayed” tells us that none of these things actually happened.

Rule # 2: If there is a piece of evidence that makes the shooting appear unjustified, it will be withheld pending the completion of the investigation.  This is more difficult to assess.  In order to do so, it is important to note which questions the department’s statement did not answer.  Namely, where on Johnson’s body was the utility knife “displayed,” and what the fuck does that even mean?  Even more importantly, how far was Officer Ajir away from Johnson when he decided to fire his weapon?  Put another way, at what distance did he determine that this box knife was such an imminent threat to his own life that Johnson’s life had to be sacrificed to save his own?  The fact that we don’t know the answers to these questions likely means one thing:  The answers do not display the officer’s actions in a positive light.  We will only find the answers to these questions once the officer has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Rule #3:  The media will do your dirty work for you.  This rule was on fine display here.  The Oregonian, Portland’s paper of record, led with the following passage in their initial reporting (emphasis mine):

The man who died in an officer-involved shooting Wednesday in Southeast Portland threatened the officer who shot him with a utility knife, prompting the officer to shoot, police said.

The first headline for this piece – which has since been changed – also said that Johnson “brandished” the box knife before he was shot.  Of course, there is absolutely nothing in the official police statement saying that Johson “brandished” the knife or “threatened” any of the officers with it.  The statement was deliberately vague, because the Portland Police Bureau understands fully that many local reporters are nothing better than stenographers for the powerful, who share their belief that those who reside at the bottom of society lack a sort of basic humanity.  The police obfuscated in their initial report because they knew The Oregonian would do the rest of their dirty work for them.

The reason for this public relations strategy is clear:  Every American knows the generic fairy tale of a typical police shooting: Our brave police officers were responding to a situation involving a human who, for a variety of reasons, did not deserve to live. These brave officers responded to the situation using the utmost restraint until they feared for their lives and the lives of their fellow officers, and only then responded with lethal force.  Immediately after a shooting, the police selectively release information, and the media and will fill in the blanks well before the full story sees the light of day.  Kill, rinse, and repeat.

 We all know what will happen here.  Officer Ajir is getting a paid vacation, at the end of which he will be cleared of any wrongdoing and allowed back on the street.   Mayor Wheeler, Chief Marshman, and City Council have done their jobs as they see them; and their message to every officer on the street is loud and clear:  You can kill with impunity.  We’ll have your back.

The Bullshit Factory

I’m going to complain about work a little bit here, so I should start by saying that I have what I can only describe as the best job that anyone could ask for.  But throughout my time in education, professional development and trainings have always rubbed me the wrong way.  I’ve always found them to be both devoid of useful content while also operating as a kind of circle-jerk where educators stroke each other’s egos.

Over the course of this school year, the staff at my school has participated in a series of trainings on something called “Trauma-Informed Care.”  Here’s the gist of it:  Many students experience severe trauma at a very young age:  chronic hunger, rape, abuse, neglect, etc.  A child’s brain has no idea how to process these things, so it goes into overdrive and produces all kinds of hormones.  Over time, these hormones have a drastic affect on the brain’s structure and chemistry.  Because of this, many of the behaviors that students exhibit later in life are a result of physical damage to their brains as much as emotional.  A teacher or social worker who is “trauma-informed” will be better able to recognize and respond to these behaviors than a teacher who isn’t, hence the training.

Unfortunately, even a topic like trauma-informed care – which treats the student as a victim of circumstance whose behavior is often times beyond their control – gets siphoned through the bullshit factory and ends up taking on a fundamentally conservative tone; one that manages to instead blame the students and their culture for their behavior.  By the time it reaches our ears, the content of these trainings are injected with pop psychology terms like “growth mindset,” which is a fancy way to say that students are in fact making a conscious decision to have a negative mindset towards school.  In this worldview, students’ behavior couldn’t possibly be the result of factors outside of their control such as crushing poverty or an educational system that’s actively trying to disenfranchise them.  So why is it that a science-based, progressive theory around how students learn been transformed into into the same old conservative lecture on the value of personal responsibility?

First and foremost, there’s clearly a disconnect between the types of people who conduct trainings like this and those of us who are in the classroom every day.  For obvious reasons, the kinds of people who leave the classroom to become administrators tend to be more conservative than those of us who stay in the classroom.  And the longer they stay away from a classroom, the more conservative they become.  As a particularly egregious example, the person charged with running our training session last week brought some of her own personal experience with trauma to the classroom.  She talked about her daughter, who recently got in trouble at her small private (!) school for wearing nail polish. Her daughter had been called into the principal’s office, and she had come home very upset.  That’s…. it.  The person who was training us on how to be better educators values public education so much that she doesn’t deign to expose her child to it, and her understanding of trauma itself is so vacuous that she thinks that having a bad day qualifies.  She’s not alone – a lot of administrators move out of the classroom because they resent the kids who attend public school, and couldn’t possibly take a moment out of their busy days to consider the baggage that students come into their classroom with.  These views are fundamentally opposed the the very idea of trauma-informed care, and yet somehow the people who are conducting the trainings are able to hold these contradictions within themselves without spontaneously combusting and bursting into flames.

The other reason these trainings lose all of their meaning is because of their audience.  When you’re presenting to a group of teachers, one of the easiest ways to kill time is to get us to talk about how difficult our jobs are.  So instead of discussing responses to trauma that our students experience, we end up talking about “vicarious trauma” and “organizational trauma,” which are things that teachers experience when we have tough students or when we have administrators who don’t back us up… or something.  We discussed these forms of supposed trauma far more than we discussed anything related to the students we work with.  In this way we transform a discussion that is supposed to be about our students into a conversation about ourselves and the struggles that we face trying to educate them.

Finally, it’s hard for me to avoid the conclusion that there is a religious element that pervades professional development as a whole.  This is true of all professions, including teachers.  Let’s say you’re a classroom teacher who views yourself as Robin Williams in Dead Poet’s Society or Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds.  Now let’s say that despite that belief, your day-to-day job involves a distinct lack of revelatory, life-changing moments for your students or for you.  How do you maintain your fundamental belief in your transformative power as an educator?  In much the same way that religious people go to church in order to maintain connection to a God they cannot see, educators go to conferences and trainings to ritualistically worship an idea of education that doesn’t exist in the real world.  It’s why these trainings, year after year, all seem to come back to the same mantra – “We do good work, the students are the problem.  We do good work, the students are the problem.  We do good work, the students are the problem.” If you say that often enough, you’re likely to believe it, despite everyday evidence to the contrary.



Self Interest Is Not a Virtue


In this week’s dose of depressing/demoralizing/disheartening news, we came to learn that Barack Obama is accepting $400,000 from a Wall Street firm to give a speech at a health care conference.  People have been rehearsing the arguments around this type of behavior for a while now thanks to Hillary Clinton’s failed run for the Presidency.  In fact, we spent so long debating this behavior it would be remarkably easy to assume it’s normal (it’s not).  During the election, I often found myself arguing that it doesn’t have to be this way.  I even went so far as to confidently assert that Barack Obama, for all his flaws, would never engage in the same kind of rent-seeking after he left office.  Unfortunately, I underestimated the extent to which pursuing one’s own self-interest in this country is not only regarded as inevitable, it’s actually considered to be the necessary and decent thing.

Obama inspires a lot of loyalty, and as a result a great many people have defended him against the criticism that has come his way after this news broke.   The general theme of this defense has been: Of COURSE he’s cashing in.  Wouldn’t you?  Others have engaged in impressive fits of fancy, whereby they imagine Obama going to this conference to speak truth to power and dress down the Wall Street Bankers for wrecking the economy.  In this telling, he’s taking the money, but only because he knows it’s the only way to access these guys to defend the American people.  Some have taken it yet further, arguing that the only reason people are upset is because they can’t handle the idea of a black man making a large amount of money.  So within a 24 hour time span, defending Obama morphed from the serious, furrowed-brow adult opinion into the morally upstanding position that all non-racists must have.  Even in this day and age, that’s a pretty quick turnaround.

All of this, of course, misses the point.  There is a deep level of distrust in our political system right now.  Republicans have had electoral success despite the fact that every single one of their non-racist policy proposals are deeply unpopular.  As a party, they’re transparently corrupt, and only interested in finding ways to funnel government largesse to their friends and political supporters while immiserating the poor.  Democrats, on the other hand, are the party of effective management, whose platform is basically “You don’t have it so bad, and we’ve got the charts and graphs to prove it.”  They don’t have a positive policy vision because they think things are pretty much fine the way they are.  The two parties really are different in some important ways.  But here’s the thing: for the average voter, these differences do not matter.  Your typical “uninformed” voter believes – not without evidence – that the parties largely exist to represent the interests of the ruling class.  So the question for Democrats is:  Do you have even the slightest interest in changing that perception?  It looks like we have our answer.

By and large, the people you’ll see defending Obama are from a similar set.  They’re generally younger, educated, middle class folks who tend to vote Democratic come election time. (I count myself as part of this group) And it’s not coincidental that many of us from this subset are going through a time in our lives where we are making choices that involve giving up on some of the more idealistic ambitions that we had in our 20s.  We are, for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons, pursuing our own interests, trying to start families, yearning for a predictable, regular paycheck.  As we navigate the job market, we are bombarded relentlessly with a crystal clear message:  It’s time to give up your idealism.  You thought you were going to work in public service?  Too bad – the pay is shit and those stable public jobs we told you about are being systematically destroyed.  You thought you’d find a job in the private sector that is both invigorating and rewarding?  Too bad – you’re now an independent contractor with no benefits who can be fired at any moment for no reason.  You want to work at a non-profit?  I hope you like kissing up to rich people!  Every day, the market for our services presents us with small choices:  we can do the right thing, or we can do the thing that is expected of us. And every time we decide to do what is expected of us, we give up a little piece of ourselves in service of our own bottom line.  

Over the years, these choices compel a kind of conversion inside of us.  This isn’t just the cliched and inexorable march from idealistic liberalism to pragmatic conservatism, it’s the story we spin for ourselves about that conversion. You see, it’s just not possible for us to go through life convinced that the choices we’ve been forced to make have been the wrong ones.  We come to believe that those choices were a result of our superior agency.  We’ve decided that not only is sacrificing the right choice for the necessary choice the adult thing to do, it’s the right and virtuous thing too.  Over time, answering the question of whether or not something benefits us becomes the central consideration in determining whether or not we are making a moral choice.  

Its no wonder, then, that people from my subset of society find themselves jumping to Obama’s defense for cashing in.  We’ve been conditioned to treat the pursuit of one’s self interest as a virtuous quest.  It’s not as if we, who are also virtuous, have been broken by a system of perverse incentives that have led us to be cogs in a horrible machine of large scale death and immiseration.  No, that’s not it – we are wise and virtuous, we know things.  Above all, we know this: If we were in Obama’s shoes, we’d be doing the exact same thing.  Wouldn’t you?

Sending A Message

An idea that’s so drenched in testosterone that it will likely never be untangled from the military or law enforcement is that you can somehow use disproportionate force to “send a message” to an opponent and thereby dissuade them from fighting you.  It’s why a police Department in Florida released this terrifying video of masked policemen “sending a message” to drug dealers.  It’s why Portland Police have a hard-on for showing up to peaceful protests boasting both superior numbers to the protesters and military-style riot gear.   It’s why the “shock and awe” air campaign that targeted Iraq in 2003 gave every male cable news anchor covering it an immediate on-air erection.

It’s not as if this idea is absent on the left either – there are plenty of people who think that if Richard Spencer just gets punched a few more times, racists will be afraid to leave their homes.  It’s why Antifa protesters are showing up at Pro-Trump rallies wearing masks and carrying baseball bats.  Fortunately for these folks, the left doesn’t have the power of the state behind them.

Yesterday we were provided two examples of this mindset on the national level:  The US Military detonating the largest ever conventional bomb on a supposed ISIS tunnel in Afghanistan, and the Trump Administration mulling a military strike on North Korea if they conduct another underground nuclear test.

What do they think is going to happen here?  Are our enemies just going to retreat into a pool of their own tears?  Will they put down their weapons and start singing America the Beautiful?  Will they admit defeat and walk around with slumped shoulders and eyes facing the ground for the rest of their days? 

I suppose I’m making a mistake in assuming that resolving conflict is the ultimate goal of these kinds of exercises.  For law enforcement and police, that conflict is what defines them.  They want war, and they’ll be happy when they get it.  What comes after isn’t so much unanswered as it is unasked.  What it means for the people in harm’s way remains to be seen.

Success is a Social Construct

My first post is going to be about something that’s been bouncing around in my head for a long time.  Since I’ve entered into education, I have worked mostly with poor and marginalized students.  And if you follow a similar path to me,  you won’t get very far before you are asked to teach students something called “success skills.”  In fact, there are entire classes dedicated to teaching these skills.  They permeate alternative education, drug rehab, and juvenile correction facilities.  These “skills” include – but are not limited to – note-taking, active listening, goal-setting, time management, emotional intelligence, financial management, stress reduction, self motivation, and (my favorite) personal responsibility.  If a student is struggling in school, these remedial classes are supposed to give them the tools they need to succeed in the rest of their classes. Sounds good, right?

I’ve been deeply uncomfortable with this approach since my first days in education.  It’s not just because the classes are universally despised by students – and trust me, they are – it’s that the course material reads like a totally different language, detached from the reality that our students face every day.  I’ve tried to articulate why this is, and here’s what I’ve come up with:

  • First off, success is not a “skill.” It’s a social construct. And no matter how many people tell you that you can define your own success, I think we know what it entails:  Success means doing well at school. Success means Getting A Good-Paying Job .  Success means owning a home. Success means retiring to a sleepy beach town someday.  Success means getting a dog, having some kids. Success means becoming the people with perfect teeth that we see in stock photography for pharmaceutical ads.
  • Unfortunately, the barriers students face in achieving this socially constructed idea of success have almost nothing to do with whether or not they possess the appropriate “skills.”  And there’s mountains of research out there that show this!  If you’re born to a high income household, you are more likely to succeed.  If you are born white, you are more likely to succeed.  If you inherit some level of wealth from your parents, you’re more likely to succeed.  If you are born in a neighborhood that has an unemployment rate of more than 50%, you are less likely to succeed.  If your father is in jail throughout your childhood, you are less likely to succeed.
  • In other words, students are struggling in the educational system because the system has failed them in some way, or – if you’re being cynical – because it wasn’t designed to accommodate them in the first place.  But it doesn’t make any sense to teach them that.  That doesn’t give them a path forward.  Your father got deported? Try some time management.  Your every move is being monitored by police because you’re wearing an GPS ankle bracelet?  Consider improving your emotional intelligence.  Been homeless for the last six months?  Try these financial management tools.  Are you recovering from years of drug addiction?  Here’s some tips on setting a SMART goal.
  • There’s a sort of evangelism that permeates through these kinds of courses and is preached by professionals who push them.  And I don’t think that’s a coincidence.  These kids are poor, they’re lost, they’re struggling.  There’s a strong desire to give them some hope, some light at the end of the tunnel. To give them something that they could just believe in order to not be lost any more. The underlying assumption of these classes is a fundamental trust in the goodness of the structures of our society.  And since that goodness is so often visibly absent, this trust can only be compared to an article of religious faith.  “Students!  We have good news!  America is actually good and you can do whatever you want if you just follow these simple steps!  Just believe in the good news and it will set you free!”
  • In addition to all of this, these classes alter the fundamental definition of what it means to be a teacher. Teachers are not Merchants.  As soon as we start promising students “skills” and “tools” that they need to achieve success, we are doing something much different than encouraging learning. We are promising a product, an end result.  It’s never long before teachers find themselves marketing these classes to students who are struggling or to other educators who are struggling to reach their students.  That’s not what it means to be a teacher – not everything is a commodity.
  • There is no data that backs up the efficacy of classes like this.  There have been studies done at the college level that have shown that developing a sense of community and shared experience can be important for improving student outcomes, and these classes can certainly help with that.  But at the K-12 level, I’ve come to a total dead-end in trying to find research that justifies these basic skills classes.  But it is universally accepted that these classes are both necessary and useful.  If you try and question it, you’ll be laughed out of the room.
  • There’s a pretty clear reason for the lack of research on this topic:  Nobody cares if these classes work.  We are simply delivering the necessary tools to students. They can take it or leave it.  If they don’t take it, if they don’t succeed?  Well, there’s nothing more we can do.  It’s on them.
  • Finally, ask yourself one question:  If you were operating from the assumption that the disparity in outcomes for students who are poor or non-white is a result of cultural differences, what would your plan to help them look like?  If you had a fundamentally Conservative view of personal responsibility, how would you design a class?  Would it involve sitting students down in a class together and telling them how fucked up their outlook is? Would it involve telling them that the problem is in their skillset? Would it involve lecturing them on the value of personal responsibility? Hey, I’d like to welcome you to your success skills course.

I understand why schools offer these kinds of courses, and it makes a level of intuitive sense that is almost impossible to argue with. But the implication is clear.  If you’re struggling in school, if you are having trouble fitting the mold, if an educational environment gives you crushing anxiety, it’s your fault.  There’s something you could have done differently to prevent yourself from getting here.  The school system is great, our justice system makes sense, poverty is not endemic.  It’s you. You need to develop a growth mindset.  You need to be more cooperative.  You need to trust us.  The answers are right around the corner.