Fordham Sees Signs of Charter Failure Even When They Aren’t There

April 25, 2017

Image result for signs tin foil hat gif

Fordham has a new report out that claims to have discovered three warning signs in charter applications that make those charters more likely to have low-performance in their initial years.  If this were true, it would be a major development given that prior research has failed to find characteristics of charter applications that predict later academic outcomes.  Unfortunately, a straightforward interpretation of the results in Fordham’s new report suggests that there are no reliable predictors of charter failure.  Despite organizations like the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) receiving millions of dollars from foundations and even receiving contracts from states to evaluate applications, there are no scientifically validated criteria for predicting charter failure from their applications.

The Fordham analysis obtained charter applications from four states.  They then focused on the successful applications and identified 12 factors that could be coded consistently in charter applications that they thought might be related to future charter performance.  The authors conducted a series of 12 logit regressions to see if any of these 12 factors were significantly related to charters being low-performing later on.  Only one of those 12 factors was significantly related.  Charter applications that said they intended to serve at-risk students were significantly more likely to be low performing on standardized tests.  (See Table C-1)  Other than that, no other factor was significantly related to charter performance.

So, Fordham might have concluded that if you want to avoid authorizing low-performing charter schools, stay away from charters that serve disadvantaged kids.  Of course, this would be a little like advising people who want to be millionaires to first start with a million dollars.  All that the finding reveals is that their measure of charter outcomes is a lousy measure that fails to capture how charters might really help disadvantaged students.

But don’t worry, Fordham never highlights the straightforward results presented in Table C-1.  Instead, the authors engage in a convoluted exercise in data mining to see if they can’t turn up some more palatable and marketable results.  So, they engage in a mechanical process of adding and removing these 12 factors and interactions of those 12 in a single model until they arrive at a “best fit.”  This is exactly the type of atheoretical mining of data that we warn our students not to do.  You should have variables in your model because you think they are theoretically related to the dependent variable, not because you tried every combination and this is the one that gave you the best fit.

In total there are 78 possible variables that could have been included if you try every one of the 12 variables plus every paired inter-action of those 12.  By chance we would expect about 3 of those 78 variables would be statistically significant and sure enough the Fordham analysis finds three significant factors.  This time they find that charters focused on at-risk students are more likely to fail if that is combined with failing also to propose intensive small-group instruction or tutoring.  They also find that charters that fail to name leaders are more likely to fail, but only if that factor is combined with the charter not being part of a CMO.

Fordham can invent post-hoc rationalizations of why these particular combinations of factors make sense, but the main point is that this is all post-hoc and could well just be the result of chance.  And it is important to emphasize that proposing intensive small-group instruction, being part of a CMO, or even naming a school leader on their own are not predictors of later test scores.  It’s only when inter-acted and in this particular combination of variables that they arrive at statistical significance.

Even worse, the “best fit” model finds that a factor that was not a significant predictor in the straightforward analysis becomes significant when included with these other factors.  So, Fordham concludes that schools proposing a child-centered pedagogy are more likely to have low performance even though the straightforward analysis did not find this.  When results vary depending on atheoretical changes in model composition we call those findings unstable or not robust.  But Fordham is undeterred and draws the conclusion that child-centered schools may be bad despite this instability in the result.

The truth is that this report provides no scientific evidence on factors that predict future low performance by charter schools.  I know that Fordham is determined to find Signs, but in this case they are likely just seeing the chance result of an atheoretical data-mining exercise.

It’s Too Much Winning Arizona!

April 25, 2017

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The Arizona winning just does not stop-BASIS scores five of the top 10 US News and World Report’s Top 10 high schools.

You other 49 states are cordially invited to join in the winning. We’ve yet to find any point of diminishing marginal returns here in the Cactus Patch.






Review of Letters to a Young Education Reformer

April 23, 2017

Below is an edited version of a review of Rick Hess’ new book that John Thompson, educator and frequent internet commentator, sent to me.  While I’m sure that John and I do not see eye to eye on all things (I think I’m much shorter), I find his perspective valuable and there is much in this review that I find useful.  The original came in at over 5,000 words spread across multiple posts, but with his permission I have edited it down to about 2,000 words in a single post. Enjoy.

(Guest Post by  John Thompson)

I’m not sure that I completely believe him, but Rick Hess concludes his Letters to a Young Education Reformer by saying he’s not a nice guy. He chides the last generation of school reformers not for the not-nice things they’ve done, but for ignoring too many key tenets of professionalism. He also shares some valuable thoughts with “‘far-from-young,’ reformers,” and veteran teachers like me who still have a hard time grasping how and why the accountability-driven, competition-driven social engineering experiment was imposed on our nation’s schools.
Hess describes himself as a “little-r reformer,” as opposed to a “Big-R reformer.” Little-r reformers believe that schools can do a far better job, and that schooling must be reimagined. They are less confident than Big-R Reformers that they know the answers. Hess seeks a “big-tent” approach to education, and a small d-democratic vision for public education. Big-R Reform, however, “has congealed into a set of prescriptions, it has grown more bureaucratic and self-assured, and further and further removed from the intuitions of little-r reform.”
Similarly, Big-P Philanthropy has enabled the hubris of Big-R Reform, and furthered the move towards the micromanaging of diverse schools across the nation. When Big-R Reform, Big-Philanthropy, and an activist federal Department of Education join together in an effort to social engineer public education, dissent can be quashed. I would add that when the clash of ideas is driven out of schools, the way that it often has been during the last 15 years, democracy is undermined.
Hess explains to young reformers why they should learn to control their passion. Thinking that they are uniquely on the side of angels, reformers pushed the soundbite, “This is about kids, not adults!” In doing so, novice reformers remained oblivious to another of Hess’ truisms – “implementation matters.” Real world, Hess explains, “For better or worse, good schools are the product of thousands of tiny judgments that those educators make every day.” So, by definition, if you want to improve kids’ lives, continually disrespecting teachers is not the way to transform “the status quo.”
Hess does a great job in explaining how and why reformers often display little patience for opposing ideas or for obstacles to their grand theories. First, they were in much too much of a hurry to learn from history’s missteps. Reformers, who often had two or three years of classroom experience – or less – quickly developed an extreme case of “groupthink.” Not knowing what they didn’t know about the history of “silver bullets” that have been hurriedly and repeatedly dumped on our schools, “this or that group of reformers” have demonstrated a clear pattern where they “settle on an agenda and then dismiss doubters as troublemakers.”
As much as it pains me to admit this about a conservative, Hess offers the single most telling anecdote illustrating the irrationalities that groupthink can produce. In late 2002, Hess attended a secret briefing at the Pentagon about the Bush administration’s educational mission in Iraq. It was clear that nobody had much of an idea regarding the situation they would be facing. One issue dominated the meeting, however. Iraq needed its own version of No Child Left Behind!
Hess isn’t a fan of high-stakes testing and he is skeptical of the value-added teacher evaluations that were pushed by the Gates Foundation and the Duncan administration. He credits reformers for ending the “old stupid,” or ignoring data systems, while concluding “the slapdash embrace of half-baked data is ‘the new stupid.’” Hess estimates that test scores “reflect 30 to 35% of what we want schools to do.” The use of those metrics was supposed to move us into the “moneyball,” or the data-informed baseball coaching that was popularized by Michael Lewis. Real world, data moved schools into the pre-moneyball era. But, reformers chose to act nice by talking about teachers as if they are girl scouts. They then used value-added models in ways that teachers were bound to see as a “hatchet job.”
One of the best things about Hess, the Little-r reformer, is that he advises reformers to learn from history’s missteps. He understands that “implementation matters,” but that reformers can have little patience for opposition or obstacles to the experiments that they mandate. As Hess has watched “this or that group of reformers settle on an agenda and then dismiss doubters as troublemakers,” he has been dismayed by the “groupthink” that has grown out of their frustrations.
My favorite Hess statement is that Big-R Reformers “learned the lyrics, not the music.” I’ve repeatedly heard reformers, who had little or no experience in the classroom, complain that the attaching of stakes to test scores did not need to produce teach-to-the-test, basic skills instruction. They demand that “everyone sing from the same hymnal” but deny that any words in the lyrics require drill and kill. Being clueless about the people side of schooling, Big-RReformers never understood that it was not what they said that matters. What matters is what school systems would hear.
Of course, test-driven accountability, as well as using test scores as the ammunition in the fight between charters and neighborhood schools, forced administrators and teachers to engage in bubble-in malpractice. The big harm came from the rapid scaling up of high-stakes testing directed at individual teachers and students, and charters.  Even in the early days of No Child Left Behind, educators had plenty of options for pretending to comply with mandates while, predictably, shutting their classroom doors and continuing to teach in the same old, good and bad ways.  Reformers responded by doubling down on both the punitive in terms of both the survival of schools and the evaluations of individuals, and by a “growing fascination with PR campaigns and political strategies.”
As with NCLB, the Obama administration imposed quantifiable targets that obviously were impossible to meet. I don’t know when Hess attended the meeting described in Letters to a Young Education Reformer, but he recalls “a no-nonsense veteran” state administrator in Florida who said he could manage about seven turnarounds. The audible shock that he prompted would have been funny if it hadn’t illustrated the reality-free nature of the campaign for mass transformations of the lowest-performing 5% of schools.
Hess is especially perceptive in diagnosing the predictable failure of Race to the Top (RttT) and School Improvement Grants (SIG). I don’t know how many 500-page RttT applications on a nineteen-item checklist Hess read but he reached the same conclusion that I did after studying many of them. There was no need to read the lyrics when the RttT hit an unmistakable chord. The applications’ words didn’t explicitly forbid the investment of time and money into the aligned and coordinated student supports that would have provided the foundation necessary for increases in meaningful learning. The timeline and the accountability metrics made it inevitable that hurried, in-one-ear-out-the-other, teach-to-the-test would take off.
In his dealings with national reformers, Hess saw what I witnessed on a local level. Reform leaders enthusiastically embraced the RttT even though “many of the folks in charge had – until about five minutes earlier – been eloquent in explaining how bureaucracy had stymied school reform.”  They had sincerely prided themselves on their opposition to red tape and their entrepreneurialism, but they turned on a dime because, “When your buddies go off to war, you go with them.”
Hess then nails the dynamics which, I believe, made the damage done by corporate reform increase during the Obama years, “When foundations and the federal government link arms, disagreeing with the president’s policies is tantamount to attacking the foundation’s agenda – and vice versa.” He then calls for “little-p rather than big-P philanthropy,” more rethinking, and less defending of the agenda of the moment.
Hess also witnessed the rise of the public relations campaigns that grew out of the effort to immediately impose transformative change. It looks to me that Big-R Reform peaked in the early Obama years when teacher-bashing propaganda like Waiting for Superman was dominant. Hess adds telling details about the way Big-R Reformers sought An Inconvenient Truth for school reform. He clearly remembers one PR pro who said the reform message needed to be “simpler, stupider, and snazzier.” At the time, it was argued that reformers were “too thoughtful for their own good.”
 For years, I tried to explain to Democrats who pushed the Big-R Reform agenda that in education it’s the lyrics, not the music that matters but perhaps Hess is better at getting that point across. I would argue that a huge reason for miscommunication is that Big-R Reformers were disgusted by the timidity, the “culture of compliance,” of school systems and they tried to intimidate the education sector into courageousness.
Not understanding the education sector’s culture of powerlessness, as well as a history of “silver bullets” being continually imposed on schools, Big-R Reformers couldn’t understand why systems remained so cautious. This prompted impatient reformers to become even more strident that punishments must always accompany rewards. They seemed to see disincentives as a normative and essential component of policies, and they seemed frustrated that educators focused on the punitive, not the incentives that corporate reformers also helped fund.
The best example of systems focusing on the music and not the lyrics is the predictable manner in which systems responded to value-added teacher evaluations.  When educators encountered the test score growth models, that were inherently biased against teachers in the highest challenge schools, administrators weren’t likely to listen to the words of reformers who presented new teacher evaluations as a means of recruiting and retaining talent in the inner city.
Reformers would explain that the use of “multiple measures” would make value-added scores less inaccurate than other measures. Reformers were reluctant to put estimates of the inaccuracy rate on paper, but I often heard the guess-timate of 5 to 10%. Somehow, Big-R Reformers failed to comprehend that that would mean that inner city teachers, especially, would face that much of a chance per year of having their careers damaged or destroyed by statistical errors. Reformers seemed incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of educators and understanding why systems would profess support for the measures but then “monkey wrench” them so that only 2% or so of teachers would be dismissed.
Rather than refight the big battles where smart people read the same evidence in different ways, I’ll close with a NAEP test score chart cited by reformer Kevin Huffman in support of the contemporary reform movement. I’d argue that Huffman’s evidence makes a powerful case against his approach to school improvement. (Huffman was debating conservative Jay Greene. Once again, this liberal respects the analysis of a conservative reformer more than the neo-liberal or liberal reformers in the debate.)
Huffman’s graphic shows that 4th grade reading rose nearly 20 points from 1996 to 2015. My first reaction is that reform has shown some success in improving math instruction, especially in the early years. That should not be a surprise given the sorry state of math instruction, especially in elementary schools, that I’d always seen as the norm. (Similarly, it should not be a surprise when input-driven reforms, like increasing high-quality tutoring or adding counselors or mentors, raise student performance but that is not evidence in favor of output-driven reform.)
However, reform has largely failed to raise reading scores, especially in the older years. There also is a simpler example of how reformers twist themselves into pretzels in order to view this evidence as supportive of reform.
The first years when NCLB could have started to improve schools would have been around 2002 or 2003. Fourth grade test scores increased more in the seven years before 2003 than they did in the twelve years that followed the law’s accountability system.  In other words, even the subject which produced the law’s greatest success does not provide support for the effectiveness of school reform.
I would argue that the metric which is most important is 8th grade reading, which is the most valuable skill and the most reliable NAEP test given to the older students. (It’s hard to evaluate the reliability of 12th grade tests.) Those reading scores increased about as much in the four years that preceded NCLB as they did in the thirteen years which followed 2002. And the same pattern applies to all of the data that Huffman presented. If anything, NAEP test score growth slowed after NCLB, and often it stopped after the Obama administration put NCLB accountability on steroids.
I would not argue that NAEP scores, alone, prove that reform failed. But clearly NAEP scores don’t provide evidence that output-driven, market-driven reform increased student performance.
Some reformers reply with the idea that an accountability “meteor” hit schools in the late 1990s, so gains that preceded NCLB should be counted as evidence for its effectiveness. I don’t know how, but some smart reformers may see this argument as something other than intellectual dishonesty and/or Alt Truth. But that opens even more cans of worms in terms of why smart people see the same education evidence in very different ways.
And that brings us back to why we need Letters to Young Education Reformers. The current and new generation of reformers may not find this to be comprehensible, but they need to know that there was a time when teachers were allowed to teach according to their professional judgments and when the economy boomed, student performance increased markedly – more than anything accomplished by the test-driven, competition-approach to increasing student performance.
Gosh, I remember a day when teachers who taught in a meaningful and culturally relevant manner, and treated students as whole human beings, did not have to fear for their jobs for having the temerity to do so. If I go too far down that road, however, I’ll betray myself as even older than Rick Hess.
Finally, somebody needs to write: Letters to a Young Education Reformer, Obama Loyalist to Obama Loyalist.
(edited to correct error in book title)

And the Higgy Goes to… Plato

April 16, 2017

Image result for plato's republic

We had a particularly strong set of Higgy nominees, mostly because things are so awful that the list of those contributing to that awfulness has grown quite long.  In a normal year Joe Biden might make for a fine recipient of the Higgy, given his wild claims, multiple incidents of plagiarism, and grossly inflated status as a respected politician. But Trump makes one pine for the days of ordinarily unimpressive politicians of which Biden may be the archetype.  Kimberlé Crenshaw would also make a worthy recipient of this dishonor for her intellectually lazy and politically disastrous idea of intersectionality.  But these days outrage at the defects of PC is so commonplace that there is little need to pile on.  TIFs are a truly horrible idea that fuel the public corruption of handing tax breaks to favored industries or friends while righteously claiming to be creating jobs.  But the Higgy cannot go to the entire city of Cerritos, California for pioneering this vehicle for Petty Little Dictators since the dishonor really needs to identify an individual.

This year’s Higgy has to go to the “ur-Bossy Mcbossytoga” — Plato — who has provided Petty Little Dictators across the generations the intellectual defense and respectability they crave to lord over others while claiming that reason and science justify their actions.  Greg may well be right that Plato’s Republic should be read as a metaphor for the well-governed soul rather than a proposal for what seems to me to be a nightmarish dystopia.  And he may be right that Plato articulated a more appealing political vision elsewhere, but the fact remains that The Republic — even if it is a common mis-interpretation — is the most horrific political dystopia ever-described.  It puts 1984, Brave New World, and the rash of recent Young Adult dystopias to shame because at least you hear villainous music in your head as you read them.  The Republic is so pernicious because it is completely awful while also being completely righteous.

It is this righteousness that makes Petty Little Dictators so insufferable.  They have complete confidence that they are guided by reason and science.  Anyone who fails to submit is anti-science or motivated by base interests, requiring re-education and denunciation.  It is incredibly painful to acknowledge, but I believe that education reform — an effort to which I have devoted the bulk of my professional life — has been almost completely captured by Petty Little Dictators, including its researchers, advocates, journalists, and practitioners.

I sometimes wonder whether we might have been better off leaving things alone.  I wish I had listened more closely to the great political scientist, Ed Banfield when he warned us of the dangers of “reform.” Instead, we Young Turks in grad school generally dismissed Banfield as the old and out-of-touch emeritus professor whose office had been moved to the basement of Littauer Hall as a sign of his declining relevance.  In fact, Banfield had something more important to teach us than all of the “science” we were learning to fix the world — wisdom.  Unfortunately, I and my ed reform peers were all young and generally lacking in wisdom.  The mystery to me is not that young people in ed reform can be so lacking in wisdom, it is that there seem to be so few grown-ups who have acquired wisdom from hard experience and are able/willing to restrain the next wave from trying to foist their brave new world on all of us.  It is as if even the older ed reformers suffer from some sort of Peter Pan syndrome where they never grow up.  Rick Hess’ new book, Letters to a Young Education Reformer, is a refreshing exception to this Peter Pan syndrome but his is largely a lonely voice standing athwart history, yelling “stop.”

The damage wrought by Petty Little Dictators is not just in their faux-scientific bossiness, it is in the backlash they generate, which is the essence of Trumpism.  If PLDDers want to impose their will in the name of science, Trumpites dismiss science altogether and focus exclusively on the triumph of their will. As they see it, science, facts, truth are all just a charade to disguise one’s interests, so their interests might as well prevail.  Petty Little Dictators fuel this oddly post-modern rejection of objective evidence by the Trumpites because they behave exactly as the Trumpites think one should behave — imposing their will arbitrarily — even if the PLDDers are simply more self-deceptive than the Trumpites about what they are really doing.

There is an alternative to invoking Science as the club to beat others into submission and advance toward the perfection of human beings or rejecting science altogether — it is called Conservatism.  Unlike the Trumpites, Conservatives believe that there is such a thing as objective reality and give deference to science and reason.  But unlike PLDDers, Conservatives are keenly away of how flawed we all are and do not trust themselves (or anyone else) enough to be the True Guardians of science and run roughshod over everyone else.  They believe people can never be perfected and that it is dangerous to try given our deeply flawed nature.  The best we can do is to preserve the traditions and institutions that hold our flawed nature in check while using science and reason to improve things on the margins.  In short, Conservatives emphasize humility while PLDDers suffer from over-confidence.

It’s true that Plato (via Socrates) displayed much humility in works such as the Meno, emphasizing how little we really know.  Then again William Higinbotham also did much good by contributing to the development of video games.  But Plato is worthy of the William Higinbotham Inhumanitarian Award because the damage done by The Republic — even if it is simply by permitting a common misinterpretation — outweighs the good.  Plato joins last year’s winner, Chris Christie, and Jonathan Gruber the year before that.

(edited for typo)

Cerritos, California for The Higgy

April 7, 2017

(Guest Post by Michael McShane)

I’m sure that the city of Cerritos, California is a lovely place filled with charming and good hearted people. But just like William Higinbotham’s creation of the video game cannot hide the scorn of creating the Federation of American Scientists, neither can Cerritos hide its shame in trying to continue one of the most counterproductive and harmful trends in American municipal governance: Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

TIF is a tool that municipalities use to try and spur economic development within their borders. Essentially, it freezes the amount of property tax that a property owner owes on a parcel of land or building at what they owed before they improved it, allowing them to keep what would otherwise be owed in taxes as the value of their property increases. So let’s say I buy an empty lot somewhere and decide to build an IKEA on it. If I can get a TIF deal, I’ll keep paying taxes on it as if the parcel of land is still an empty lot, even though the value of the property has gone way up.

Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. At most, it appears that TIF diverts economic activity from one part of a community to another. It doesn’t create new economic activity.  Oh, and here’s another problem, it diverts much needed tax dollars away from city, county, and state services and uses them to line developers’ pockets. Property taxes fund schools, libraries, mental health facilities, and a variety of other necessary functions of government.

But I think the worst part is how TIF, (and other forms of tax abatement, sweetheart deals cuts by civic leaders to developers, and/or outright public funding of stadiums and other facilities) promotes one of the JPGB’s mortal enemies, Petty Little Dictators. Rather than allowing people to decide where they think is best to build a new IKEA, movie theater, or office building, mayors and city councils, via tax subsidies, distort people’s behaviors to try and create their ideal little cities.  It also allows them to reward their friends and supporters with lower taxes while everyone else pays more to make up for it.

And what if you’re a business owner that doesn’t have the connections to get hooked up with TIF? Ask the sports bars around Busch stadium in St. Louis that existed before the city used tens of millions of dollars in TIF subsidies to build “Ballpark Village,” a conglomeration of food and drink options right outside of the stadium. Some saw their business fall by 50%. Great local businesses that saw through the city’s ups and downs for decades, dutifully paying their taxes all along, saw their customers go to their government-subsidized competition.

So what does Cerritos have to do with all of this? Well, California (of all places) decided to ban TIF a few years ago in response to the tremendous financial problems of the state. TIF was particularly costly to California because the state would pay back schools and libraries what local taxing jurisdiction had diverted from them.  So, they wisely got rid of it. Cerritos and several other cities are suing to try and bring TIF back.

The Higgy is given for “individuals whose arrogant delusions of shaping the world to meet their own will outweigh the positive qualities they possess.” Cerritos’s desire to use tax incentives to pick winners and losers embodies this perfectly. That’s why I think it deserves the Higgy.

Kimberlé Crenshaw for the Higgy

April 4, 2017

Image result for intersectionality

Kimberle Crenshaw is a law professor at UCLA who is best known for coining the term, “intersectionality.”  As Wikipedia describes it, intersectional theory is “the study of how overlapping or intersecting social identities, particularly minority identities, relate to systems and structures of oppression, domination, or discrimination.  There is nothing particularly harmful (or novel) about noting that people have multiple identities and that those identities overlap, sometimes in important ways.  The problem with intersectionality, which makes Crenshaw worthy of The Higgy, is that it has fueled an intellectually lazy and politically disastrous approach to virtually all social issues.

Intersectionality is intellectually lazy because it provides a single, overly-simplistic framework for understanding everything.  As Jonathan Haidt describes it, intersectionality divides the world into victims and oppressors.  In a type of re-warmed Marxism, all victims share the same struggle against the same underlying oppression, because all forms of oppression are connected.  The fight against racism cannot be won without addressing sexism, classism, ableism, etc…

Rather than having to learn about the complex circumstances and histories of different conflicts around the world, all we have to do is figure out who the victims and oppressors are.  Once we’ve forced the world into our Manichean framework, we know who should be helped and who should be stopped.  The problem is that the world is a lot more complicated than that.  People can be both oppressors and victims at the same time, depending on which issue we choose to make the focus of our attention.  And the struggle against one oppression may be completely independent of or even undermine the struggle against another oppression.

For example, the National LGBTQ Task Force decided to exclude an organization that seeks to make connections between LGBTQ communities in Israel and America from holding an event at the Task Force’s national conference in San Francisco.  Invoking the idea of intersectionality, some people convinced the Task Force that LGBTQ people in Israel could not be seen as victims (the good people) because they are oppressors of the the real victims, Palestinians.  Of course, dividing the world into oppressors and victims obscures the complex ways in which Palestinians may be oppressors of LGBTQ people or Jews at the same time that they may be victims of other types of oppression.  People are typically a mix of good and bad, which means that we might want to consider each type of grievance independently and understand it within its own context.  Instead, intersectionality encourages its adherents to label everyone as good or bad abstracted of individual circumstance or history, so we know who should be helped and who shunned (or worse).

To earn the good status of being the victim rather than the oppressor, people will compete in the who has suffered more Olympics, which is hardly a rational way to make moral or political judgements.  The people who claim to have suffered more may not be the most virtuous and those who are prospering may not be the most evil.  And encouraging people to compete for victim status discourages people from doing things that may help themselves so that they don’t risk appearing less victim-like.

In addition to being intellectually lazy, intersectionality is politically disastrous.  By connecting all issues, intersectionality prevents its adherents from agreeing with people on one issue while disagreeing on another.  If certain people are the oppressors and others victims, you can’t make common cause with the “oppressors” for the issues on which you have common interests.  You might think that linking different victims would give them a larger political coalition, but linking different oppressors drives away even more since few are the victims of every oppression.  Almost everyone can be framed as an oppressor in one way or another, all of whom are ineligible from joining your coalition against any particular injustice.

We’ve seen this type of political self-immolation in education reform, most notably at the infamous New Schools Venture Fund conference.  The more people demand that everyone in their coalition join them in opposing all injustices, the fewer people they have left to oppose any one injustice.  Some charter school people who have turned their hostility against private school choice are about to discover how lonely, small, and weak their purified coalition is about to become.  Especially given that Republicans dominate most state governments, purging mainstream Republican ideas from their version of the choice movement seems doomed to fail.  But given that intersectionality may find virtue in failure and sin in success, perhaps these folks don’t mind failing so much.

I don’t know enough about Crenshaw to say whether she has other redeeming qualities, but The Higgy does not demand that its recipients be awful people.  They only have to have done something to detract significantly from the human condition.  Introducing and promoting the concept of intersectionality certainly qualifies Crenshaw for this dishonor.

It’s Time Again for “The Higgy”

April 2, 2017

William Higginbotham

It is time once gain to solicit nominations for the William Higinbotham Inhumanitarian Award.  Below I reproduce portions of the first announcement of “The Higgy” in 2012, so you have an understanding of the historic significance and criteria for this dishonor.


As someone who was recognized in 2006 as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, I know a lot about the importance of awards highlighting people of significant accomplishment.  Here on JPGB we have the Al Copeland Humanitarian Award, but I’ve noticed that “The Al” only recognizes people of positive accomplishment.  As Time Magazine has understood in naming Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatullah Khomeini as Persons of the Year, accomplishments can be negative as well as positive.

(Then again, Time has also recognized some amazing individuals as Person of the Year, including Endangered Earth, The Computer, Twenty-Five and Under, and The Peacemakers, so I’m not sure we should be paying so much attention to what a soon-to-be-defunct magazine does.  But that’s a topic for another day when we want to talk about how schools are more likely to be named after manatees than George Washington.)

Where were we?  Oh yes.  It is important to recognize negative as well as positive accomplishment.  So I introduce “The Higgy,” an award named after William Higinbotham, as the mirror award to our well-established “Al.”

Just as Al Copeland was not without serious flaws as a person, William Higinbotham was not without his virtues.  Higinbotham did, after all  develop the first video game.  But Higinbotham dismissed the importance of that accomplishment and instead chose to be an arrogant [jerk] by claiming that his true accomplishment was in helping found the Federation of American Scientists and working for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.  I highly doubt that the Federation or Higinbotham did a single thing that actually advanced nonproliferation, but they sure were smug about it…

I suspect that Al Copeland, by contrast, understood that he was a royal jerk.  And he also understood that developing a chain of spicy chicken restaurants really does improve the human condition.  Higinbotham’s failing was in mistaking self-righteous proclamations for actually making people’s lives better in a way that video games really do improve the human condition.

So, “The Higgy” will not identify the worst person in the world, just as “The Al” does not recognize the best.  Instead, “The Higgy” will highlight individuals whose arrogant delusions of shaping the world to meet their own will outweigh the positive qualities they possess.

We will invite nominations for “The Higgy” in late March and will announce the winner, appropriately enough, on April 15.  Thanks to Greg for his suggestions in developing “The Higgy.”